Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 136

Thread: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

  1. #71
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The presidents budget request for State Department security was denied by the Republicans when they took control of congress in 2011.

    Republicans insisted the State Department security should get less than they needed....a lot less.

    The Democrats had to negotiate for more funding and a compromise was made with the Republicans.

    The Democrats voted for the negotiated amount, not the Republicans reduced amount.

    If Democrats still controled the house the State Department would have gotten the amount they needed.

    The negotiated amount still fell millions short...$270 MILLION according to Factcheck....of the budget request for State Department security.

    Therefore, State Department security was still under funded because of the Republicans.
    We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million

    Total: $2.64 billion

    Cuts in spending already passed by Congress

    Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million

    Total: $2.31 billion

    The difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million -- a bit above the $300 million Biden cited.

    Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.

    But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)

    The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint -- it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee.

    Our ruling

    Both ways of defending the claim of a $300 million cut have some justification, but also come with problems. Extrapolating from Ryan’s budget is a speculative exercise, while the enacted appropriations figures were not directly shaped by Ryan's budget. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.....snip~

    PolitiFact | Joe Biden says Paul Ryan cut embassy security by $300 million


    Looks like Politi-Fact says The SPENDING BIll by the Appropriations bears Team Obama's mark.....Doesn't it?

  2. #72
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,463

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million

    Total: $2.64 billion

    Cuts in spending already passed by Congress

    Using the second justification -- comparing Obama’s request to what the GOP-controlled House voted to spend for fiscal year 2012 -- has the advantage of not being speculative. Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million

    Total: $2.31 billion

    The difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million -- a bit above the $300 million Biden cited.

    Ultimately, a final bill with slightly higher amounts than the House’s initial bill -- about $60 million more -- was passed by both chambers and signed by the president.

    But this approach has problems as well. For starters, Biden glosses over the fact that the president did ultimately sign the bill with the new lower funding amount, meaning he shares some responsibility for the lower level. (All presidential budget requests are opening offers that inevitably become subject to negotiation.)

    The main problem with Biden’s claim, however, is that it’s not really what he was referring to in his claim from the debate. Biden said Ryan "cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for," but what passed the House wasn’t Ryan’s budget blueprint -- it was an actual spending bill that emerged from the House Appropriations Committee.

    Our ruling

    Both ways of defending the claim of a $300 million cut have some justification, but also come with problems. Extrapolating from Ryan’s budget is a speculative exercise, while the enacted appropriations figures were not directly shaped by Ryan's budget. On balance, we rate the claim Half True.....snip~

    PolitiFact | Joe Biden says Paul Ryan cut embassy security by $300 million


    Looks like Politi-Fact says The SPENDING BIll by the Appropriations bears Team Obama's mark.....Doesn't it?
    None of that changes the fact that the State Department was under funded because of the Republicans. I can repeat that fact just as many times as you can spin, twist and ignore it.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Charlene Lamb RESIGNED!!!! None of the witnesses or anyone directly involved with the Libyan facility has blamed anyone else except her and now she no longer has her job. What more is there to say that hasn't already been said?
    Yeah, her and Boswell resigned. Plus Nordstroms Emails and Requests goes beyond Charlene Lamb and her boss Boswell, which he testified to.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    None of that changes the fact that the State Department was under funded because of the Republicans. I can repeat that fact just as many times as you can spin, twist and ignore it.
    Yeah, and I can repeat the MSM Fact Checkers that the President bears partial responsibility. Because he could have changed that. But didn't!

  5. #75
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    None of that changes the fact that the State Department was under funded because of the Republicans. I can repeat that fact just as many times as you can spin, twist and ignore it.
    Under funded, how? and by how much? Did they lay off people? Take a cut in pay? Was the under funding directed solely at the embassy? Maybe you can shed some like on this, from what I hear under oath that the decision to not provide added security had nothing to do with funding or not funding.

    "In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

    Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  6. #76
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,463

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yeah, and I can repeat the MSM Fact Checkers that the President bears partial responsibility. Because he could have changed that. But didn't!
    LOL The president doesn't control the funding, congress does.


    So how could Obama have changed that, especially with a GOP congress that refuses to compromise on spending or anything that Obama tries to do?

    Weeper of the House John Boehner say's No Compromise with Democrats - wtf - YouTube



    Security for the State Department was under funded because of Republicans.

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinefire View Post
    The inexperience of Obama in politics is starting to glow in the dark. He is in over his head and now is the time to turn up the volume and nail his ass to the floor ans assure Clinton cannot run in 2016.
    Obama was over his head as soon as he had to take the oath of POTUS a second time on Inauguration Day back in January of 2009.

    With in weeks I think Obama realised that the job of being President was bigger than he was.

    Come on Democrats, a frickin community organiser as POTUS ???

    Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    Maybe it was all about PC diversity ?

  8. #78
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,463

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Obama was over his head as soon as he had to take the oath of POTUS a second time on Inauguration Day back in January of 2009.

    With in weeks I think Obama realised that the job of being President was bigger than he was.

    Come on Democrats, a frickin community organiser as POTUS ???

    Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    Maybe it was all about PC diversity ?
    Please stop trying to change the subject and hijack the thread.

  9. #79
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Please stop trying to change the subject and hijack the thread.
    Well the thread was on Emails.....after the deflection over what Congress and the President Did with Embassy Security Funding.. What happened to that?

  10. #80
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:35 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,463

    Re: Benghazi Bombshell: Leaked Emails Were Edited to Make Obama Look Bad [W:58]

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    Under funded, how? and by how much? Did they lay off people? Take a cut in pay? Was the under funding directed solely at the embassy? Maybe you can shed some like on this, from what I hear under oath that the decision to not provide added security had nothing to do with funding or not funding.

    "In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

    Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
    Uhhhhh, the reason there wasn't enough security at Benghazi was because they didn't have enough people...and the reason they didn't have enough people was because THEY DIDN"T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING!!!!

    If you want to know specific details about the funding then I suggest you read MMC's Factcheck posts. Lord knows he's posted them on every thread about Benghazi. lol

Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •