GOP voted to cut funding for embassy security

[Buddy]

"Honestly we don't know what effect the cuts really had. My point was and is that you can not blame the WH for not providing additional security when you simply cut the budget."

Are you saying that if Congress does not fully fund every aspect of this administration's programs then the administration can't be held liable for the results? You can not possibly believe this. The numbers you list also make the assumption that all of the money not approved from the proposed budget came directly from embassy security. That should be about the last place it should come from. They could find 1% in office supplies or something innocuous...insinuating that it had anything to do with this terrorist act is ridiculous and insulting. Congress has nothing to say about where the money is allocated within the department once it is appropriated


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[cuzinvinny]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh "my Bad"

[rob19]

Now you expect me to believe that because the compromised budget fell less than one percent below the proposed amount, it prevented the State Department from allocating proper resources to obviously dangerous situations and allowed for four Americans to be slaughtered? ---

The Obama Administration and the State Department should just come out and say they screwed up and put measures in place to ensure they don't happen again.

Would one of those measures be to increase spending on embassy security? Obviously a tragic situation, but I don't think anyone's suggesting Obama handled this well. However I do think some people recognize the irony of the source of criticism given that their own budget is the lower of the two. Hindsight aside, I think it's hard to know if more would have been done with a lower budget. Spending less on security and expecting more of it seems a little like having your cake & eating it too.

[cuzinvinny]

[QUOTE]

"Honestly we don't know what effect the cuts really had. My point was and is that you can not blame the WH for not providing additional security when you simply cut the budget."

Are you saying that if Congress does not fully fund every aspect of this administration's programs then the administration can't be held liable for the results? You can not possibly believe this. The numbers you list also make the assumption that all of the money not approved from the proposed budget came directly from embassy security. That should be about the last place it should come from. They could find 1% in office supplies or something innocuous...insinuating that it had anything to do with this terrorist act is ridiculous and insulting. Congress has nothing to say about where the money is allocated within the department once it is appropriated

I agree with you about how the limited knowledge of were the funds would be used plays a huge roll. Also would think that if there were not enough money to fund the embasys security issues, common sense seems to be Take out our people. I mean this doesn't seem to be that difficult to understand. And if Repblicans were limiting funds that actually protect our people they should also be held accountable....But for gods sake if you can't protect get our people out of there...

[phins_4_ever]

"Honestly we don't know what effect the cuts really had. My point was and is that you can not blame the WH for not providing additional security when you simply cut the budget."

Are you saying that if Congress does not fully fund every aspect of this administration's programs then the administration can't be held liable for the results? You can not possibly believe this. The numbers you list also make the assumption that all of the money not approved from the proposed budget came directly from embassy security. That should be about the last place it should come from. They could find 1% in office supplies or something innocuous...insinuating that it had anything to do with this terrorist act is ridiculous and insulting. Congress has nothing to say about where the money is allocated within the department once it is appropriated


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

My point is not the performance or lack thereof by the WH, Congress in general or anything like that. My point is that you can not scream fire and point fingers and complain that the fire department is slow when you had a hand in it to spark the fire and a hand in it which took away the ability of the fire department to respond in an appropriate time frame.

It is really not that hard to understand.

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


As some have said. Just a child with a temper tantrum.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Buddy]

Rob, I don't even know if the budget was actually cut...they just got <1% led than they asked for. The article doesn't mention why the budget was YOY. Something tells me that it was left out on purpose because I have a hard time believing that the actual budget went down.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[cuzinvinny]

For What Its Worth:

" Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary for Management, and Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for diplomatic security, maintained that security arrangements were adequate. Lamb said .” She denied that budget cuts had affected decision making on security arrangements, as some had charged."

[phins_4_ever]

For What Its Worth:

" Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary for Management, and Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for diplomatic security, maintained that security arrangements were adequate. Lamb said .” She denied that budget cuts had affected decision making on security arrangements, as some had charged."

It is worth a lot. And I tell you why.

I get always quite annoyed with all these semantics and this forth and back. So this issue became a perfect example to get the right to admit that the charge the GOP, Romney and Ryan have levied against the WH that not enough was done prior to the tragic events was wrong. It became a Presidential campaign tool right after the events.

I saw several links which stated the above but I left them out. Purposely. It didn't fit my agenda. It is much different when I post a link or statement like that or one of you. If I post the statement it is considered 'defending a failing President'.
But if the righties post a statement like that it essentially renders the foreign politics of the GOP in the last 4 weeks useless, shows how incompetent your presidential candidate and his running mate are. And you have just 'defended a failing President'.

Trap snapped. Ouch.

I didn't think that it would be that fast though. I expected to have a few more go-arounds about the budget until someone pulls that quote. But the temper tantrum got the best of you.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[cuzinvinny]

It is worth a lot. And I tell you why.

I get always quite annoyed with all these semantics and this forth and back. So this issue became a perfect example to get the right to admit that the charge the GOP, Romney and Ryan have levied against the WH that not enough was done prior to the tragic events was wrong. It became a Presidential campaign tool right after the events.

I saw several links which stated the above but I left them out. Purposely. It didn't fit my agenda. It is much different when I post a link or statement like that or one of you. If I post the statement it is considered 'defending a failing President'.
But if the righties post a statement like that it essentially renders the foreign politics of the GOP in the last 4 weeks useless, shows how incompetent your presidential candidate and his running mate are. And you have just 'defended a failing President'.

Trap snapped. Ouch.

I didn't think that it would be that fast though. I expected to have a few more go-arounds about the budget until someone pulls that quote. But the temper tantrum got the best of you.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Man I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.......

[Buddy]

It is worth a lot. And I tell you why.

I get always quite annoyed with all these semantics and this forth and back. So this issue became a perfect example to get the right to admit that the charge the GOP, Romney and Ryan have levied against the WH that not enough was done prior to the tragic events was wrong. It became a Presidential campaign tool right after the events.

I saw several links which stated the above but I left them out. Purposely. It didn't fit my agenda. It is much different when I post a link or statement like that or one of you. If I post the statement it is considered 'defending a failing President'.
But if the righties post a statement like that it essentially renders the foreign politics of the GOP in the last 4 weeks useless, shows how incompetent your presidential candidate and his running mate are. And you have just 'defended a failing President'.

Trap snapped. Ouch.

I didn't think that it would be that fast though. I expected to have a few more go-arounds about the budget until someone pulls that quote. But the temper tantrum got the best of you.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I am not exactly sure what your point is either and certainly don't see how this absolves anyone from responsibility except those who established the budget.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2