We invaded Iraq, at great cost and loss of lives, and injuries, and destruction, and a huge debt -- for NOTHING.
There were no WMDs, there was no threat or link to al-Quaida or terrorists. NONE.
So, if we STILL have contractors there, it is because of a terrible, terrible mistake by neo-cons. Bring THEM home; put that damned mistake behind us, NOW. We've been gouged for enough money.
Those would be the SAME DAMNED NEO-CONS who are advising the foreign policy plans of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. These would be the same deep fried battered disasters-on-a-stick that we had with Dubya, who will go down as the WORST president in history, as documents are declassified, due to both failed domestic AND foreign policies on a massive scale.
Although, if Romney is elected it could become a tie for 'worst'.
The right REFUSES to take responsibility for inadequate funding, but the legislation is theirs - they drafted it, and they pushed it with their majority, they sought it, they campaigned for election on it in 2010, and are still doing so in 2012.
The notion that decisions in Libya were made to give an ILLUSION of normalcy is ridiculous. That is one of the most pathetic graspings at straws I have seen this year -- and there have been some beauts.
The reality is that inadequate funding was provided to our State Department, and that the right has steered billions upon billions of dollars into the pockets of war profiteers while inadequately supplying our troops and inadequately providing funding to our diplomatic missions.
The right wing nuts scream about other people FAILING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, while it is the RIGHT THAT IS THE BIGGEST CONSISTENT EXAMPLE OF FAILED RESPONSIBILITY AND MASSIVE BUCK-PASSING. The one thing I do NOT expect from any Republican chaired hearings is an honest investigation into what happened and who was responsible. An example of that failure is the following interview with Republican Rep. Chaffetz. The right cuts funding, in order to give more tax breaks through the continuing Bush Tax Cuts that remain in effect, but they screw over the people who serve this country -- the people who DIED, were injured, and were threatened.
Only the right believes you can have fail-proof security without paying for it, or that it makes more sense to spend money on bullshit that the Pentagon doesn't want, ONLY because defense contractors make a lot of donations. A perfect example would be the F-35, for which we build TWO engines for every fuselage, and then pile them up in warehouses, because the plants that build the engines are in John Boehner's home district. Who built those engines again? Oh, yes -- that would be General Electric, whose former CEO Jack Welch made an ass of himself and had to quit Fortune magazine over demonstrably stupid criticism of the National Labor Statistics report on unemployment going below 8%.... Hypocrisy and badly corrupt government -- you are both personified by Republicans and Tea Partiers, and the candidates you run, from Mitts on R-money and Lyin' Ryan on down the ballots.
There were no WMDs, there was no threat or link to al-Quaida or terrorists. NONE.
So, if we STILL have contractors there, it is because of a terrible, terrible mistake by neo-cons. Bring THEM home; put that damned mistake behind us, NOW. We've been gouged for enough money.
Those would be the SAME DAMNED NEO-CONS who are advising the foreign policy plans of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. These would be the same deep fried battered disasters-on-a-stick that we had with Dubya, who will go down as the WORST president in history, as documents are declassified, due to both failed domestic AND foreign policies on a massive scale.
Although, if Romney is elected it could become a tie for 'worst'.
The right REFUSES to take responsibility for inadequate funding, but the legislation is theirs - they drafted it, and they pushed it with their majority, they sought it, they campaigned for election on it in 2010, and are still doing so in 2012.
The notion that decisions in Libya were made to give an ILLUSION of normalcy is ridiculous. That is one of the most pathetic graspings at straws I have seen this year -- and there have been some beauts.
The reality is that inadequate funding was provided to our State Department, and that the right has steered billions upon billions of dollars into the pockets of war profiteers while inadequately supplying our troops and inadequately providing funding to our diplomatic missions.
The right wing nuts scream about other people FAILING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY, while it is the RIGHT THAT IS THE BIGGEST CONSISTENT EXAMPLE OF FAILED RESPONSIBILITY AND MASSIVE BUCK-PASSING. The one thing I do NOT expect from any Republican chaired hearings is an honest investigation into what happened and who was responsible. An example of that failure is the following interview with Republican Rep. Chaffetz. The right cuts funding, in order to give more tax breaks through the continuing Bush Tax Cuts that remain in effect, but they screw over the people who serve this country -- the people who DIED, were injured, and were threatened.
Only the right believes you can have fail-proof security without paying for it, or that it makes more sense to spend money on bullshit that the Pentagon doesn't want, ONLY because defense contractors make a lot of donations. A perfect example would be the F-35, for which we build TWO engines for every fuselage, and then pile them up in warehouses, because the plants that build the engines are in John Boehner's home district. Who built those engines again? Oh, yes -- that would be General Electric, whose former CEO Jack Welch made an ass of himself and had to quit Fortune magazine over demonstrably stupid criticism of the National Labor Statistics report on unemployment going below 8%.... Hypocrisy and badly corrupt government -- you are both personified by Republicans and Tea Partiers, and the candidates you run, from Mitts on R-money and Lyin' Ryan on down the ballots.
What amazes me is all the people that discount Ron Paul as a nut. But in my opinion he would be a good candidate for balancing and eliminating this wasteful spending. What makes me laugh is that most Conservative Republican types turn there noses up towards Paul, even though he is the most Conservative of the bunch. I can only assume, this is because of his ideas on our military, as well as defense spending.
ReplyDeleteThey had money for Chevy Volts in Europe, but hey supporting an embassy in a country that had just changed governments and was experiencing terrorist attacks...
ReplyDeletehttp://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/10/02/list-13-attacks-prior-to-attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya/
· June 2012 – Ambassador Stevens was in the habit of taking early morning runs around Tripoli along with members of his security detail. According to sources, sometime in June 2012, a posting on a pro-Gaddafi Facebook page trumpeted these runs and directed a threat against Ambassador Stevens along with a stock photo of him. It is reported that, after stopping these morning runs for about a week, the Ambassador resumed them.
· June 6, 2012, BENGHAZI – Under cover of darkness, assailants placed an IED on the north gate of Consulate Benghazi, blowing a hole in the security perimeter that was described by one individual as, “big enough for forty men to go through.”
· June 10, 2012, BENGHAZI – On or about June 10, 2012, a two-car convoy carrying the British Ambassador to Libya from a conference on reforming Libyan military law was attacked in broad daylight by a militant with an RPG. This attack was an important escalation in the violence against Western targets in Benghazi, as prior attacks had been at night and were often preceded by warnings from the attackers. Photos from the aftermath of the attack are attached.
· Late June 2012, BENGHAZI – The ICRC building was attacked again, this time in broad daylight while people were inside. Once the ICRC pulled out, the US Consulate was the last Western flag flying in Benghazi, making it an ideal target for militants.
· August 6, 2012, TRIPOLI – Armed assailants attempted to carjack a vehicle bearing diplomatic plates operated by U.S. security personnel.
· WEEKS BEFORE September 11, 2012, BENGHAZI – The unarmed Libyan guards employed by British contractor Blue Mountain Group were being warned by their family members to quit their jobs guarding Consulate Benghazi because there were rumors in the community of an impending attack.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/libya-attack-protest-state-department_n_1953263.html
According to an email obtained Tuesday by the AP, the top State Department security official in Libya told a congressional investigator that he had argued unsuccessfully for more security in the weeks before Ambassador Chris Stevens, a State Department computer specialist and two former Navy SEALs were killed. But department officials instead wanted to "normalize operations and reduce security resources," he wrote.
So the green state department has scarce resources for Chevy Volts but hey no security an embassy in a country that has openly hostile elements that have proved their desire to harm westerners.
Obama would have know this if he actually attended security briefings.
You're still jumping the gun here Thomas.
DeleteMore likely, there were vehicles that needed to be replaced in Europe, so Chevy volts were the choice, because of the high cost of petroleum products. And because we have committed to going more green.
It has been the Republicans who cut the spending for security, not providing what was requested. You could make all kinds of arguments about where to put money and resources. Arguably the biggest mistake in resource allocation was the invasion of Iraq, which has largely had only downsides.
What makes you think that Obama doesn't attend security briefings? That is factually inaccurate.
For starters, he has taken FAR less vacation time and been far more conscientious than Dubya ever was --- as was Clinton. It is the right wing nut presidents who don't do their jobs.
Wait for all the facts to be in; not all monies can be spent at State Dept. discretion; some of it is designated by Congress when they pass these limited funding provisions.
So far there has been absolutely no proven evidence that the State Department failed to do their job, or that the requested additions or improvements would have made the slightest bit of difference.
That will be the smoking gun; so far, all we know is the right has not adequately funded the state department --- so they could give more money to the rich through Bush tax cuts remaining in effect.
Lets wait to see what the
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI realize buying AMERICAN cars for use in Europe, you know, as the AMERICAN government, seems odd to you.. AND, it seems even more odd that they bought the #1 rated mid-sized sedan, AND they bought a 'green' energy car, you know, when they are trying to move us toward a new technology based economy, I mean I realize all that makes no sense to you.. but try this one on...
Only a small minded jingle-brain actually thinks the President, or even his close staff, had/have anything whatsoever to do with the specific decisions about security staff. It's tin-foil hat Bullshlock. Did George Bush DECIDE to tortue folks at Abu Ghraib? No. His Sec Def selected people who were "ambivilent" about the treatment of prisoners, and Bush (like Obama) is ultimately responisible for the criminal decisions of members of the military. I assume you hold George Bush and Don Rumsfeld personally accountable for the WILFUL misconduct of thier staff, correct? Whereas, Obama's underlings made a bad call (apparently) on the size of the staff. A mistake, Thomas, an error in judgement even, but hardly criminal, hardly negligent. Yes, there were warnings, but I'll bet those were hardly the first. There were ALSO warnings, warnings which hit Bush's daily briefings at least twice heading up to 9/11/01, of a terrorist attack. I assume you hold George Bush PERSONALLY accountable for ignoring those warnings, and you ALSO hold him accountable for ignoring the warnings of his intel staff that we had far too few troops to invade Iraq (in the plan) and probably couldn't secure weaponry of the Iraqi Army as a result and that weaponry would be used against us? I assume you do, I mean, you're not a hypocrite, right?
So.. just to keep score...using YOUR scorebook here Thomas.. just to be clear
Bush - responsible for criminal misconduct of staff
Bush - responsible for ignoring intel preceding 9/11 - thus responsible for those deaths
Bush - responsible for ignoring warnings about unsecured weapons - responsible for their use on US troops, shall we call it 500 American lives lost?
Bush - responsible for ignoring warnings about Iraq NOT having WMD and moreover NOT being in any way likely to use them or ALLOW their use by Hezbollah - thus responsible for an unjust, needless war - let's call that 3000 American lives, 500,000 Iraqi and 500,000,000,000.00 USD wasted
Something for which neither BUSH NOR any neo-con, paleo-con twit has EVER taken responsibility for.
Obama - responsible for a mistake by security staff/SecState Staff making decisions about security forces, leading to the deaths of 3 Americans..something for which he's expressed regret and said should have been handled better...
Yep, that sizes it up nicely.
Thanks for stopping by.. next time, bring your brain instead of your tin-foil hat.
The other reality that Thomas seems unfamiliar with is that the way funding is written in legislation stipulates some allocation of resources. Thomas - and the rest of the right who have been critical - assume that there was simply an irresponsible or uncaring allocation of resources by the Hillary Clinton led State Department.
ReplyDeleteIt is nothing like that simple, and for the right to present it that way is an attempt to mislead people.
If Thomas chooses to be one of those misled right wing low information followers, that is his coice, but that's NOT a fair presentation of the situation.
UNLIKE Bush, who had Republican majorities approving virtually unlimited money during his administration for all aspects of national security, including overseas security for diplomatic missions. Even with an effective blank check, there were MORE incidents than under Obama, who has had to in HIS administration deal with his security budget CUT substantially.
Sure seems that The executive branch blames the state department, and not those evil rethuglicans....
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the Hillary loves the view from under the bus, cause Bill sure don't....
And how is it that all those smart libs can't reach the same conclusion that you did?
http://patterico.com/2012/10/13/bubba-wont-let-hillary-get-thrown-under-the-bus-on-benghazi/
Aw, Thomas, you really need to find better sources than this drivel.
ReplyDeleteNO, it doesn't seem that the executive branch is blaming state at all.
Try finding reliable sources when you comment.
You have yet to demonstrate that funds used to purchase green vehicles was not stipulated from prior periods of expenditure, and therefore designated and spent well prior to any consulate existing in Benghazi. You have failed to demonstrate that the State Department failed to take adequate precautions, or that the resources they had available to them was NOT restricted by Republicans, or was improperly allocated.
From what I can see, the administration is on exactly the same page. Would you care to address the 7-12 incidents like this under the last administration, which resulted in far more deaths, far more injuries, far more damage, and FYI, far more loss of intel material than occurred under Obama?
Even Reagan had more incidents like this, than Obama.
Now Bubba, aka that really SUCCESSFUL President Bill Clinton only had the one incident, as did Bush Sr., who was at least more competent than Reagan or Dubya.
So, if you're using this incident as the metric for failure, you have to accept that it condemns right wing policies far more than any criticism of Obama........and it condemns the policies proposed by Romney/Ryan, which would simply be Dubya's mistakes repeated, both foreign and domestic --- and you can't fail bigger than that.
Read it and weep:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/10/mocking-success-right-doesnt-know-it.html