Sen. Lindsey Graham rattles off some stats/info that should have demanded our state Dept. should have either a) beefed up security, or b) shut down our embassy in Benghazi. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk)
Challenge to a family member:
- "…your still neglecting the fact that the republicans voted no on the bill that would have provided 200 million in embassy security! THAT coulda saved em… and you wanna talk about lies… what about the fact that bush told congress and the American people that Iraq had nuclear weapons... nuclear weapons!! that was a complete and total lie! they knew they didn't have nuclear weapons! that lie caused the death of tens of thousands of Americans, british, French, Iraqis lives."
My Response and the reason I uploaded the video:
A few things. Briefly. [1] More Democrats voted to reduce embassy security than Republicans. [2] Money was not the issue, requests for additional security were denied, the Brits closed their embassy due to security threats growing in the area, the State Dept. should have done the same (Sen. Lindsey Graham rattles off intel list that should have demanded change in security or operational status: http://tinyurl.com/d2f4542; also, watch Shep Smith hold back his anger on the same intel and how the government should have changed direction [second video]: http://tinyurl.com/c7rmuml). 300-million for free contraception for women (when they say they want government out of their bedrooms/but then demand government pay for acts in the bedroom) but not for increased security? Democrat logic 101:
- The State Department was aware of multiple security breaches and red flags in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack; House Republicans were not. The Security Department had security personnel on the ground warning that the situation was reaching a crisis level; House Republicans did not. House Republicans have a say in the budget, but the State Department is responsible for how that money is spent. And their spending choices were revealing: Officials increased “danger pay” for security personnel in Benghazi, instead of hiring additional security or sending supplies. The buck stops with the officials who made the security decisions and the commander-in-chief, not the House Republicans. (Commentary Mag: http://tinyurl.com/c6j8loj)
[3] WMDs... no one said nuclear weapons were in Iraq. Geeeze... this is the second time in a week I had to direct someone to my "WMD PAGE" on my blog. (It grew out of a conversation where I trounced a professor of history from Michigan University.) I suggest Dustin (and you D) thoughtfully go through this page and listen to the audio and watch the videos therein. It will save you, Dustin, from getting egg on your face with persons who know a bit more than the myriad of left leaning professors reveal at your place of learning: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/wmd/
You saying "that was a complete and total lie! they knew they didn't have nuclear weapons! that lie caused the death of tens of thousands of Americans, [B]ritish, French, Iraqis lives" is a lie and worthy of defamation in our little court here today.