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

MMC said:

Yeah, I know you got lost at the State Dept's own Site..... Especially on their own security report. When you figure that part out about Ansar al Sharia being part of the Militia. That they cannot be mistaken due to the logos on their vehicles. Then get back with me.

I know you thought just because it was a Conservative Live Radio Site.....that they wouldnt reference their sources. But then that State link and those docs given to the oversight committee kinda shows where your at.

Click to expand...

Ok. But what's the hidden secret that would make this claim something other than a joke ?......................

MMC said:

Yeah, I know you got lost at the State Dept's own Site..... Especially on their own security report. When you figure that part out about Ansar al Sharia being part of the Militia. That they cannot be mistaken due to the logos on their vehicles. Then get back with me. I know you thought just because it was a Conservative Live Radio Site.....that they wouldnt reference their sources. But then that State link and those docs given to the oversight committee kinda shows where your at.

Click to expand...

Sorry Charlie, you seem to have gotten lost in all the wild accusations being hurled about, you seem to avoid acknowledging the MSG isn't assigned to guard the Ambassador, nor the Ltc isn't risking anything in his letter. It doesn't accuse anyone of anything, seems more a CYA letter than a smoking gun. But you did excellent work attempting to make it sound like that.

Oh I see, just like in Afghanistan and Iraq our forces can't be sure who they are training and if those they train will stay on the government side? Please post a link of a few keywords to that report saying the Terrorists drove their 'We be terrorists' labeled trucks to training.

The problem with your posts are most of it can be easily proven wrong like the Marine Security Guard and the complete letter the Ltc wrote so the claim terrorists came to training by our Special Forces in trucks with their logo on the side seems a bit much

notquiteright said:

Sorry Charlie, you seem to have gotten lost in all the wild accusations being hurled about, you seem to avoid acknowledging the MSG isn't assigned to guard the Ambassador, nor the Ltc isn't risking anything in his letter. It doesn't accuse anyone of anything, seems more a CYA letter than a smoking gun. But you did excellent work attempting to make it sound like that.

Oh I see, just like in Afghanistan and Iraq our forces can't be sure who they are training and if those they train will stay on the government side? Please post a link of a few keywords to that report saying the Terrorists drove their 'We be terrorists' labeled trucks to training.

The problem with your posts are most of it can be easily proven wrong like the Marine Security Guard and the complete letter the Ltc wrote so the claim terrorists came to training by our Special Forces in trucks with their logo on the side seems a bit much

Click to expand...

The MSG detachment works for the RSO. The top security priority at every American diplomatic installation is the safety of American and local staff. Protection of classified information and equipment is primarily the responsibility of those agencies and personnel who own the information and equipment.

notquiteright said:

Sorry Charlie, you seem to have gotten lost in all the wild accusations being hurled about, you seem to avoid acknowledging the MSG isn't assigned to guard the Ambassador, nor the Ltc isn't risking anything in his letter. It doesn't accuse anyone of anything, seems more a CYA letter than a smoking gun. But you did excellent work attempting to make it sound like that.

Oh I see, just like in Afghanistan and Iraq our forces can't be sure who they are training and if those they train will stay on the government side? Please post a link of a few keywords to that report saying the Terrorists drove their 'We be terrorists' labeled trucks to training.

The problem with your posts are most of it can be easily proven wrong like the Marine Security Guard and the complete letter the Ltc wrote so the claim terrorists came to training by our Special Forces in trucks with their logo on the side seems a bit much

Click to expand...

Notice that's not what I was talking about.....You focused on those parts. See that part about guarding the Ambassador isn't as Important as the States Own Docs showing they had hired Ansar al Sharia and trained them. I understand those that work at the Radio station aren't Ex Military. I used the site to confirm the Docs sent to the oversight committee. As well as due to the radio excerpt of Steven's requests for security on Sept 1, 2011. I also used to show that the link has a link to those 100 security Requests to Clintons Dept. With a link to the 230 reports of violence in that was taking place. Which goes to a Libyan Report.

Then to show what Nordstrom said about Security and Operations.

It doesn't matter if it was Specifically Special Forces that trained them. One thing is clear it was US personnel that trained them. So that you cannot get round.

Oh and as for their Vehicles perhaps you should pay attention to the fact that the Administration stated they had the footage. As Ansar al Sharia. Provided Security for the Region. Not just us. It was their Trucks at the blockades and at check points. It's called paying attention to all the Material that is up on it. Which appears you are lacking.

Now try again with the Col who Testified behind closed doors so far.....care to explain his remarks. What you think he isn't Risking. Why would he say what he did? Lets see you spin what the Lt Col Wood stated.

MMC said:

Uhm note an Appropriations Bill Signed by the President.....do you think he actually read it.....or just smiled for the Photo op with his Pen in his left hand?

Click to expand...

I think he didn't have much of a choice, either sign it now or wait a few months and maybe get the same thing.

I would like to see a copy of the leaked e-mail and compare it to the orginal and make my own determination
I'm not like others in this thread that will take a very biased medias word on it

pbrauer said:

I think he didn't have much of a choice, either sign it now or wait a few months and maybe get the same thing.

Click to expand...

Maybe he shouldn't have had anything cut there from the beginning. Either way the matter is a non issue. All it does is deflect away from the Real points that wont go away.

Obama and old bag Clinton are both guilty of being themselves here as the information on them deliberately lying grows by the minute. 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.

head of joaquin said:

Now it sounds like you're talking about Issa as another one of his witch hunts fails. Indeed backfires.

How's that Fast and Furious thingie working out for ya?

Click to expand...

Ah ... I see your problem ... by your example of F & F it's clear you've confused creating a sleazy reputation for yourself (Obama, in this case) with being actually convicted of malfeasence while in office.
Ya see, while I have no doubt you'll be his fanboy to the bitter end, for most other people these kinds of things tend to chip away at the facade he's tried to build and eventually he becomes a walking talking series of dark humor episodes like, yes, F & F.
Here ... these are some examples of what I mean ...

pbrauer said:

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.”

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

​

Is that better?

Click to expand...

Asked and answered in #28.

MMC said:

Note the links about.....Fact Checkers. Note that part about what the Senate did and then Obama Signing the bill. Then Note that bipartisan bit.

Click to expand...

According to Factcheck the amount was still less by $270 million than what the State Department requested or needed.

Rep. Chaffetz was right, he did vote to cut State Dept funding.


So what exactly are you arguing about MMC?

bubbabgone said:

Asked and answered in #28.

Click to expand...

Wow, so you "remembered" in post #28. Did you post a link to the clip you remembered? Do you remember the woman's name or what her position was? Do you remember why she was testifying? Do you remember what committee she was testifying to? No? NO???

Pffft....:roll:

Moot said:

According to Factcheck the amount was still less by $270 million than what the State Department requested or needed.

Rep. Chaffetz was right, he did vote to cut State Dept funding.


So what exactly are you arguing about MMC?

Click to expand...

That it wasn't just him. Plus where the initial start came from. As well as all those Democrats on that Appropriations committee that voted for it.

MMC said:

That it wasn't just him. Plus where the initial start came from. As well as all those Democrats on that Appropriations committee that voted for it.

Click to expand...

Chaffetz is the only one we really need to concern ourselves with, since he's the one at the forefront making the most vociferous accusations and then trying to twist the facts to fit his accusations....

Chaffetz suspects Libya security decisions

Moot said:

Chaffetz is the only one we really need to concern ourselves with, since he's the one at the forefront making the most vociferous accusations and then trying to twist the facts to fit his accusations....

Chaffetz suspects Libya security decisions

Click to expand...

Actually the Fact Checkers explained the Bigger picture of what counted. Especially in the Political world and how it goes down. Which changes nothing about it being a deflection away from what matters.

Moreover again, it has nothing to due with Charlene lamb reducing security after the Consulate was attacked the Second time up until the Attack on the Anniversary of 911.

Captain America said:

View attachment 67147499

Click to expand...

In the spring of 1998, Prudence Bushnell, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, sent an emotional letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright begging for a more secure embassy in the face of mounting terrorist threats and a warning that she was the target of an assassination plot.

The State Department had repeatedly denied her request, citing a lack of money. But that kind of response, she wrote Albright, was "endangering the lives of embassy personnel."

A matter of months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were simultaneously attacked with car bombs. In Kenya, 12 American diplomats and more than 200 Africans were killed.

As in Benghazi, requests for more security were denied, warnings were issued, prior incidents were ignored and Susan Rice went on TV to explain it all.

Within 24 hours, Rice, then assistant secretary of state for African affairs, went on PBS as spokesperson for the administration — just as she was regarding Benghazi when she parroted the administration's false narrative on five Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, that Benghazi was caused by a flash mob enraged by an Internet video. Then, as now, she worked for a Clinton.

Eerie similarities between Benghazi and Nairobi are many. A review of the attacks showed the CIA repeatedly told State Department officials in Washington and in the Kenya embassy that there was an active terrorist cell in Kenya connected to Osama bin Laden, who masterminded the attack.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: For Susan Rice, Benghazi Was Kenya 1998 Deja Vu; Tanzania Too - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Lets not forget the 4000 Wounded. Throw in Darfur and Somalia. Blackhawk Down sound familiar.

Dear Democrats......How did this happen again when ya said ya took care of it last time. That it would never happen again. What Happened?

MMC said:

That it wasn't just him. Plus where the initial start came from. As well as all those Democrats on that Appropriations committee that voted for it.

Click to expand...

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.

....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.

GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com

Click to expand...

MMC said:

Actually the Fact Checkers explained the Bigger picture of what counted. Especially in the Political world and how it goes down. Which changes nothing about it being a deflection away from what matters.

Moreover again, it has nothing to due with Charlene lamb reducing security after the Consulate was attacked the Second time up until the Attack on the Anniversary of 911.

Click to expand...

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?

Moot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

MMC said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Moot said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yeah, her and Boswell resigned. Plus Nordstroms Emails and Requests goes beyond Charlene Lamb and her boss Boswell, which he testified to.

Moot said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and I can repeat the MSM Fact Checkers that the President bears partial responsibility. Because he could have changed that. But didn't!

Moot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.”