The republican Congress cut funding, not the state department. - 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016) Discussion

[–] superadoe 9 years ago

To go along with this logic, ultimate blame should go to the parents who procreated every republican congressperson who blocked whatever funding that compromised the safety of the US mission in Libya. C'mon, where does responsibility for this debacle begin? How could this security mishap be allowed to happen by the most powerful country in the world?

If our stationwagon is not mechanically sound to drive us from Idaho to Disneyland and we don't have the disposable income to fix it, fly there, take the Greyhound, etc., then I'm sorry, we don't get to go to Disneyland...and yet, deciding on the contrary is the kind of decision making that the State and Defense Departments decided to embark on in regard to the US diplomatic mission in Libya.

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BLMz1chEM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’

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.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 9 years ago

It was a bipartisan measure, but yes, some Republicans voted to give the Obama administration less than the wish list they asked for. Later, Biden said the Administration had no idea the Benghazi needed more security, suggesting that is not where additional funds would have been spent.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

It was MOST Republicans in the Republican led House that cut funding for embassy security.Republicans started massively cutting embassy security funding as soon as they took over The House.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

So then why did they open a consulate in 'Indian Country' if there was no security? And when the S.H.T.F., why was no help forthcoming?

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

Those questions are easy to answer if you do a little research Nick.

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 9 years ago

Joe Biden: "We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security."

So if the Administration had no clue about any need or request for added security specifically in Benghazi, how are we to believe that is where any additional funds would have been directed?

Some just want to blame Republicans for an irrelevant bipartisan "spending cut".

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

Biden talks out of his ass all the time.The amount of funds requested by The Obama administration for Embassy protection was denied by the GOP-controlled House .The official request for funds for Embassy protection and denial by the Republican led House is on the record.

Who knows if they would have properly secured the Benghazi Embassy if they had gotten their requested funding.If they had gotten their funding and 4 lives were still loss in the Benghazi attack The Republicans hands are clean and its Hilary's fault because they gave her what she asked for to provide security.Republicans not giving her the resources to provide security makes it their fault.

All it takes is one democrat vote for a bill to bipartisan but the majority of votes to cut Embassy security came from Republicans in a Republican led House.Embassys had more security funding when Democrats were the majority in The House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

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.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Right, sweetheart...can 'soft soap' that one can you?

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] thomas196x2000 9 years ago

You stunk up the other thread chow with the same meaningless quotes. Lord, what a LOSER.

We went WAY past the money, idiot. There were other assets that could have been deployed, and were not. Clinton was asleep at the switch.

We know you get a boner every time you see those wide thighs, but the truth is, she's a failure, and so are you.

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

Can't deny that The Republican led Congress did not provide the requested Embassy security funding and repeatedly cut it can you thomas? I understand that ad hominem attacks is the best you can do now.Your little insults mean nothing to me or the so called wide thighs loser because she is our next President and I'm glad that she will be.😀

reply

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

@LeslieChow

There were other assets that could have been deployed, and were not. Clinton was asleep at the switch.

Can you please provide what type of assets were available and from where they would come from in time?

We went WAY past the money, idiot. There were other assets that could have been deployed, and were not. Clinton was asleep at the switch.

We know you get a boner every time you see those wide thighs, but the truth is, she's a failure, and so are you.

Like I have already posted:
If you actually knew something about the State Department hierarchy it was actually Charlene Lamb (Deputy Assistant Secretary for Security) that was the person in State most directly responsible for the lack of security at the Temporary Diplomatic Outpost. Hillary wasn't DIRECTLY responsible, but she was in charge, so everything eventually rests at her feet if you want to try pin it on someone even though security that wasn't her department in the massive Department of State.

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] LeslieChow 9 years ago

" @LeslieChow "

Can you please provide what type of assets were available and from where they would come from in time?

I didn't write those posts.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TrumpFiredHerLMAO 9 years ago

Who blamed YouTube tho?

reply

[–] kmd11 9 years ago

Typical Hillary apologist. Who gives a @#$t who cut the funding huh?

They called and asked--no they fuc#4ng begged for help. They actually said 'we are going to die if you don't help us' and the people that could have helped them were told repeatedly to stand down.

By who else-the Obama led Hillary run State Dept. Now, I know that doesn't fit with your hysterical rantings about Republicans, but let me remind you that Obama was President and Killary was running the State Dept when this happened. That's really all you need to know.

Blame it on Republicans all you like, but it falls squarely on Obama and Killary. They know it too or they would not have shoved the false narrative about some stupid video down the throats of America in an effort to deflect blame and make sure sheep like you see fit to blame anyone other than those two bozos. I guess "at this point what difference does it make" huh.

reply

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

The movie says there was a stand down order, but in reality, it appears this was artistic license taken by Michael Bay.

Here is, of all places, a Fox News article on the subject. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled.html)

The article headline: No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack

From the article:

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee ... concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

reply

[–] mytirestore 9 years ago

So if she lacked the funds to provide protection, and she knew things were deteriorating won't simple common sense be to remove them from harms way? Personally I don't hold her responsible but I do hold Obama. Hillary threw herself under the bus to help ensure Obama's reelection and in return she got her super-delegates. I think the DNC really screwed up instead of having a nominee that's actually qualified to be president they have shoved Hillary down our throats.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bubblenator 9 years ago

So if she lacked the funds to provide protection, and she knew things were deteriorating won't simple common sense be to remove them from harms way?

They had no Intelligence that there was a planned attack of the Ambassador's Compound. Like Jack Silva says in the movie "I thought every embassy had standard
hard-target security measures. Car bomb barricades, full-time Marines. Whereby "Rone" replies "Supposed to. This isn't an embassy. We're a TEMPORARY DIPLOMATIC OUTPOST." They can't afford to start constructing Jersey barriers, Marine Security Guards etc for a TEMPORARY OUTPOST.

The US Embassy was actually in Tripoli so the Benghazi Outpost was there with a minimum amount of Diplomatic Security Service Agents. They also had the "friendly" 17 Feb Brigade militias manning the outside the compound and CCTV armed so how was Hilary supposed to know they would desert the Compound once the militia known as Ansar al-Sharia started to attack the Compound?

If the Diplomatic Outpost was deemed "critical" then the US military should have had in place a Quick Reaction Force to provide air support whether am armed ISR drone with Hellfie missiles, an AC-130 gunship, a JSOC team based in Sigonella or even the F-16s based at Aviano just to to give a "show of force" flyover.

Ambassador Stevens might have made a request for more security but it wasn't in the budget nor was there Intel of an attack and he knew there was a CIA Annex a mile away to provide help if they were to be attacked from 6 elite, heavily armed and trained GRS Operators in armoured cars.

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] usafa93 9 years ago

Reviewing the comments following David Probaso's original post, I am pleased to see he has been corrected.

David, Hillary set-up a diplomatic post, which Congress did not approve. Nor should they. It's her authority.

She did so, and she did not provide for security. It was 100% her decision. She had command authority. She killed those people.

Congress DOES NOT line-item funds for discretionary posts.

reply

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

What you said above is not quite right.. here's some info from Fox News about this issue.

A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee ... concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

(http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled.html)

The article also summarizes this from the House Intelligence Committee report:

The report blames the Obama administration's inaccurate portrayal of the attack as having evolved from a protest on fragmentary and contradictory intelligence from the CIA. It finds no intent to mislead the American public.

Ambassador Chris Steven's sister has said:

"I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta ... They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself."

(http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/chris-stevens-hillary-clinton-benghazi-224928)

reply

[–] Vulcans_Rule 9 years ago

What you said above is not quite right..

It's not clear that your posted information contradicts his assertions.

 Entropy ain't what it used to be.

reply

[–] AlarmedGibbon 9 years ago

Upon review, I take your point :)

But if I may proceed to clarify... the notion that Hillary Clinton was responsible for Benghazi security, in anything other than an ultimate "the buck stops here" type of sense as the Head of the State Department, does not make sense to me.

Security for Benghazi was being handled by security professionals within the State Department.

From Hillary's testimony:

The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi ... were handled by the security professionals in the [State] Department. I didn't see those requests, I didn't approve them, I didn't deny them."

Why would we expect our top diplomat to be an expert in security, or even overseeing security at all?

As Head of the State Department, yes, Hillary ultimately takes responsibility (and indeed she has said she does take responsibility).

But in reality, security was being handled by the security folks, as it should be. We don't want diplomats making security decisions, they're not security experts.

That's why I took umbrage with the gentleman who I was responding to.

reply

[–] Sabre77 9 years ago

The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi ... were handled by the security professionals in the [State] Department. I didn't see those requests, I didn't approve them, I didn't deny them." ~Hillary Clinton

AlarmedGibbon I find that an interesting quote. The primary job of the Sec State is to advise the President on US Foreign Policy. How can a Sec State give such advice when they are unaware of the security concerns in a particular region of the world. Now maybe that would hold water if the particular place was uneventful and not of major concern but can anyone honestly say that Libya was not of primary concern at this time? She doesn't have to be an expert but she does have to be aware. So she seems to be uninformed of something critical to her job or she was aware the entire time. There is no third option here.

So feel free to take umbrage.

"When I left you I was but the learner. Now I am the master." - Piglet

reply

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

Sabre77, thanks for joining in, I love that we're all actually having a civil conversation here on a political subject, how rare =D

So, more umbrage from me here ;)

When Secretary Clinton said that she didn't see those security requests, she is not saying that she was unaware of security concerns in Libya. She was only indicating that those types of requests are handled by other professionals whose job it is to handle such things.

There is no indication that Secretary Clinton unaware of security concerns in Libya. In fact, people at the State Dept were so concerned about security there that they urged Chris Stevens not to go. But, he insisted on going.

Here are some quotes from a Libyan man whose job it was to coordinate Ambassador Chris Stevens’ 2012 trip to Benghazi:

"The political attacks based on the events of that night portray Chris not as the hero and leader that he was but as the pawn and the victim of incompetence or worse in Washington ... To use his death to advance a political agenda is offensive, to me, to the truth and to Chris’s memory."

He also mentioned that:

he has been approached by parties asking him, sometimes via threats or offers of payment, to endorse what he called “false versions of events that night.”

Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bubaker-habib-chris-stevens-benghazi-225172

Make no mistake, that is exactly what's happened with regards to this Benghazi story. His death is being used to advance a political agenda on the right. That's why there's been more time spent investigating Benghazi than 9/11.

Even the Republican Congress's own report on Benghazi clears Hillary of any wrong-doing. This dog just isn't barking.

reply

[–] Sabre77 8 years ago

AlarmedGibbon, my apologies for the lateness of this reply.

The policy of the Obama administration has been all along to not antagonize the peoples of the world. So if battle ensues that Americans are caught in then they are on their own. I realize this is conjecture on my part but I would like you to challenge this and say that this is not the case.

If it is the case I would like you to acknowledge it.

The point of my contention is that no matter what happened in Benghazi on the days in question and whether or not help could have been sent it just was never going to happen based on policy. A predetermined consideration that if the *beep* hit the fan the administration would wash its hands of the whole matter.

Seeing as how this occurred during a Presidential re-election campaign one must consider the official story of this all being about a youtube video is more then just laughable but a stern indication of the lie that it was.

They simply had no idea of the threat that was there and this indicative of how little they understood about world affairs.

"When I left you I was but the learner. Now I am the master." - Piglet

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sadarm 8 years ago

Just stop. Stop trying to blame everything on republicans. It's so old. You know damn well that if George Bush had been in office, a flight of fighters would've been there along with a 130.

reply

[–] magemaximus 8 years ago

lol

You can't persuade fanboys. You'd be better off trying to convince a wall. ~CodeNamePlasmaSnake~

reply

[–] AlarmedGibbon 8 years ago

No sir, respectfully, this is not true.

Here is a summarized conclusion, from Fox News of all places, about the Republican controlled House Intelligence Committee on Benghazi:

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/no-stand-down-order-or-military-missteps-in-benghazi-attack-gop-controlled.html

reply

[–] bubblenator 8 years ago

Just stop. Stop trying to blame everything on republicans. It's so old. You know damn well that if George Bush had been in office, a flight of fighters would've been there along with a 130.

The F-16s that are based at the Aviano AFB in Northern Italy is out of range of flying to and even back from Benghazi without being aerial refuelled or landing at Naval Air Station in Sigonella which yes it does have KC-135 and KC-10 tankers based there.

However those tankers are already "booked" for other missions and are "used stops for U.S. airlift aircraft bound from the continental United States to South-west Asia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Indian Ocean" and are not a Quick Reaction Force to refuel the F-16s at Aviano!

So even if Bush was in still in Office where in the World would the US Armed Forces have a manned, ready to go at a minutes notice an AC-130 gunship to provide Close Air Support for a Temporary Diplomatic Outpost and a COVERT CIA Annex in Benghazi, Libya a year after they help win the the revolution. There were untold numbers of Tangos and the different types of weapons and Technicals they are using?

Also the AC-130 variants normally fires at a 60 degree bank from side ports which would make it a lot harder in the narrow streets of Benghazi around the Compound and Annex and at night. Then add into that this is a large, low speed, low altitude aircraft ripe for being shot down by a simple RPG-7 or even a SA-7 Grail that were on the Black Market!

Even when there was the Libyan Revolution in 2011 the US Air Force had to deploy (fly in) TWO AC-130U Spooky gunships to take part in Operation Odyssey Dawn because there are no other variants of the AC-130 based outside of the continental US! They are only based at Hurlburt Field, Florida and Cannon AFB, New Mexico and deployment needed by the US Air Force Special Operations Command around the Globe.

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply