Money went for Green Cars vs. Security for Libyan Embassy

[rgrovr]

Un-flippin-believable.

The WashingtonTimes is reporting that money was prioritized to purchase a Chevy Volt charging station for the Viennan embassy 4 days after disapproving a security funding request for the Libyan embassy (link)

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

I swear this makes me want to kick a puppy when I hear this. How anyone can vote for Obama befuddles me to no end.

[xbook]

And how about the GOP voting to defund the security abroad? The House GOP took away $331 million from the security budget. Maybe if the budget hawks would think about their decisions prior to making them, there would have been enough funding to go around.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

Here's the video where the House GOP agreeing that the House GOP did in fact cut finding:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...assy-security/

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by xbook

And how about the GOP voting to defund the security abroad? The House GOP took away $331 million from the security budget. Maybe if the budget hawks would think about their decisions prior to making them, there would have been enough funding to go around.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...p_ref=politics

Here's the video where the House GOP agreeing that the House GOP did in fact cut finding:

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/20...assy-security/

Your predictability is about as a transparent as a newborn needing to be fed.

The Democrats out-voted republicans 149-147 on the Continuing resolution for funding the State department.

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012

Additionally, the man in charge of Embassy Security expressly stated yesterday that budget cuts had zilch, nada, zero to do with the Protection of the Libyan embassy:

Any other Democrats want to get burned with the facts???

[MiddleAgedAl]

And yet the Democrats are still absolutely fixated on funding reductions for Big Bird.... it's so absurd it's almost like a Monty Python sketch....

Heaven forbid that the cookie monster might have to pay his own way via commercials or something, that's clearly more important than ambassadors getting enough support to not get murdered or anything.

At least the green manifesto continues as long as we throwing support at the Volts to enable GM to continue to lose $50K per car sold.
(when they say it's green, they are talking about the money being poured down the drain, right?)

[pgviper]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Any other Democrats want to get burned with the facts???

Haha, as many car forums say it:

Nice kill!

[TMNT]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

Any other Democrats want to get burned with the facts???

Sure.

Do you even know what a continuing resolution is? You obviously don't because you look like a fool using that as a means to "prove" democrat negligence in cutting the state dept's budget. When you find out exactly what a CR is, I'll give you an opportunity come back and change your statement. You're just another know-it-all who thinks he understands how the Federal Government operates, when in-fact, you really have no clue.

You might get away with that non-sense 90% of the time on a car forum where people don't know enough to challenge you, but unfortunately for you in this case, you just got exposed.

[BKsBimmer]

Originally Posted by TMNT

Sure.

Do you even know what a continuing resolution is? You obviously don't because you look like a fool using that as a means to "prove" democrat negligence in cutting the state dept's budget. When you find out exactly what a CR is, I'll give you an opportunity come back and change your statement. You're just another know-it-all who thinks he understands how the Federal Government operates, when in-fact, you really have no clue.

You might get away with that non-sense 90% of the time on a car forum where people don't know enough to challenge you, but unfortunately for you in this case, you just got exposed.

Haha! Nice kill

[incantana]

Originally Posted by TMNT

Sure.

Do you even know what a continuing resolution is? You obviously don't because you look like a fool using that as a means to "prove" democrat negligence in cutting the state dept's budget. When you find out exactly what a CR is, I'll give you an opportunity come back and change your statement. You're just another know-it-all who thinks he understands how the Federal Government operates, when in-fact, you really have no clue.

You might get away with that non-sense 90% of the time on a car forum where people don't know enough to challenge you, but unfortunately for you in this case, you just got exposed.

The 2 marines that were killed were told 3 separate times to not help the ambassador when they knew he was under attack. After being denied the third time, the Marines went in anyway knowing that no help would come for them as the Obama administration had ordered no interference as they watched in the war room of the white house. The marines went in knowing that they were risking their careers and also their lives.

They ultimately paid with their lives because the Obama administration would not send in help during the 7 hour firefight. The decision to blatantly ignore the ambassador's requests over the previous months for increased security was completely within the control of the administration. The decision to not send help was made by Obama and his administration. They watched as our men were slaughtered. They repeatedly phoned for help which fell on cold ears in the White House.

Do not blame this on anyone else but Obama and the administration he put in place. If this happened under Bush, he would already be impeached. This is a major scandal not only because of the refusal to help our fellow dying Americans but because the administration has repeatedly changed their story in an effort to cover up the events. Coverups have nothing to do with budget cuts. This a a tragedy and the blood is on Obama's hands just as the blood of our citizens who died from guns in the fast and furious scandal are on the hand of eric holder and obama.

Again, if either of these scandals happened under Bush it would be nonstop news calling for his resignation. MSNBC has covered the Bengazi story less than 8 times and has covered the fast and furious scandal less than 5.

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by TMNT

Sure.

Do you even know what a continuing resolution is? You obviously don't because you look like a fool using that as a means to "prove" democrat negligence in cutting the state dept's budget. When you find out exactly what a CR is, I'll give you an opportunity come back and change your statement. You're just another know-it-all who thinks he understands how the Federal Government operates, when in-fact, you really have no clue.

You might get away with that non-sense 90% of the time on a car forum where people don't know enough to challenge you, but unfortunately for you in this case, you just got exposed.

I love the debate that is light on facts but on heavy on insinuation as if you think you won something.

Did you read the CR? Obviously not. The funding was to stay either at current levels or lower from the last appropriations. That more Democrats voted for it than Republicans is EXACTLY the point I made to refute Xbook's faulty premise that Republicans voted to defund the State Department's request for Security.

And since you like to deflect the argument, stick to what's germane. The State dept. official testified under oath that the budget had ZERO impact on security decisions for the Embassies/Consulates.

Facts suck for you don't they?

[incantana]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

I love the debate that is light on facts but on heavy on insinuation as if you think you won something.

Did you read the CR? Obviously not. The funding was to stay either at current levels or lower from the last appropriations. That more Democrats voted for it than Republicans is EXACTLY the point I made to refute Xbook's faulty premise that Republicans voted to defund the State Department's request for Security.

And since you like to deflect the argument, stick to what's germane. The State dept. official testified under oath that the budget had ZERO impact on security decisions for the Embassies/Consulates.

Facts suck for you don't they?

Liberals do not make decisions based on fact. They make decisions based off emotion and feel good positions. The only time they use "facts" is when they THINK it will support their emotionally chosen stance. Typically these facts are taken completely out of context or are just plain incorrect.

Liberals see failure as a success. If someone had good intentions but their execution fell short or their ideas fail, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to liberals is the motive behind the action. Not the action itself. Results do not matter to them. Only effort.

[xbook]

Originally Posted by incantana

Liberals do not make decisions based on fact. They make decisions based off emotion and feel good positions. The only time they use "facts" is when they THINK it will support their emotionally chosen stance. Typically these facts are taken completely out of context or are just plain incorrect.

Liberals see failure as a success. If someone had good intentions but their execution fell short or their ideas fail, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters to liberals is the motive behind the action. Not the action itself. Results do not matter to them. Only effort.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by xbook

Haha that was funny. I'll agree with you there, making such a general assumption about either party makes absolutely no sense.

[TMNT]

Originally Posted by rgrovr

I love the debate that is light on facts but on heavy on insinuation as if you think you won something.

Did you read the CR? Obviously not. The funding was to stay either at current levels or lower from the last appropriations. That more Democrats voted for it than Republicans is EXACTLY the point I made to refute Xbook's faulty premise that Republicans voted to defund the State Department's request for Security.

And since you like to deflect the argument, stick to what's germane. The State dept. official testified under oath that the budget had ZERO impact on security decisions for the Embassies/Consulates.

Facts suck for you don't they?

<Shaking my head>
You still don't get it.
Of course a lot of democrats voted for the CR as did republicans. The notion that more democrats voted for it than republicans actually hurts your point. IF the democrats and/or republicans didn't vote for the CR than guess what happens next? That means NO MONEY would be appropriated aka completely defunded.
By voting for the CR they kept the status quo vs a much scarier thought of completely defunding the Dept of State. It's one or the other.

Do you get it now?

[rgrovr]

Originally Posted by TMNT

<Shaking my head>
You still don't get it.
Of course a lot of democrats voted for the CR as did republicans. The notion that more democrats voted for it than republicans actually hurts your point. IF the democrats and/or republicans didn't vote for the CR than guess what happens next? That means NO MONEY would be appropriated aka completely defunded.
By voting for the CR they kept the status quo vs a much scarier thought of completely defunding the Dept of State. It's one or the other.

Do you get it now?

You are lost in your own sauce. The issue at hand wasn't the passing of the CR, which affects the entire U.S government, not just the State Dept. but Obama's request to increase funding for State as part of the budget proposal. That is what was being debated and DEMS, higher than REPUBS agreed to NOT include such an increase and affirm the CR at current funding levels.

But I get it -In your eyes the DEMS who voted no are supposed "principled" and the Repubs who voted no are just crazy right-wingers who wanted to defund the gov't. LOL

Schooling liberals in civics is becoming passe. You want more facts thrown your way??