Question for Obama / Clinton Supporters

The Republicans don't sound like they're having a good day having to explain why requests for more security personnel at Benghazi was turned down because of teabagger budget cuts....while they're trying to blame someone else for "lack of adequate security....

LJ....Did you spend any time today actually watching the hearings or did you just peruse left wing news sites for answers that met your ideology?

Regardless the current administration lied for 2 weeks blaming a video instead of admitting they knew it was a terrorist assignation of a US ambassador.

Democracy4Sale wrote: The Republicans don't sound like they're having a good day having to explain why requests for more security personnel at Benghazi was turned down because of teabagger budget cuts....while they're trying to blame someone else for "lack of adequate security....

No where near the facts. This debacle had nothing to do with money it was all about political gain.
Here are the facts from today's congressional hearing:

During the hearing, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, and Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August, placed the blame squarely on Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs, whom they said was the official who denied those requests.

"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," Nordstrom testified, adding that Lamb had directly told him over the phone not to make the requests, but that Cretz decided to do it anyway.

"In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway," Nordstrom said.

please read the entire article here at The cable

The entire administration is a bunch of incompetent political hacks, and apparently liars.

Becky wrote: LJ....Did you spend any time today actually watching the hearings or did you just peruse left wing news sites for answers that met your ideology?

I've been working today, and the hearings were broadcast on XM/Radio - CSPAN... So, yes, I've listened to them.

Does that meet your criteria for being allowed to comment on what I see is the usual bullsh*t deflection of Issa and the GOTP of their own failure to fund the Department while trying to deflect the blame to the other party?

You mean the hearing conducted solely by Issa and the Republicans. Democratic members of the committee were denied access to the witnesses and to the documents beforehand. This was strictly a kangaroo court intended to mask the culpability of the role of the House GOP in the failure of security at these missions.

Democracy4Sale wrote: The Republicans don't sound like they're having a good day having to explain why requests for more security personnel at Benghazi was turned down because of teabagger budget cuts....while they're trying to blame someone else for "lack of adequate security....

rofllol Really? Pretty lame response. The Obamas can spend 5 trillion extra but are unable to redeploy some troops. More excuses from the empty suit.

What's lame is trying to blame someone else for lack of security after you've cut the budget for it...

I'll see your rofllol and raise you rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol

Photo-fish wrote: Aside from coddling Israel more and threatening to engage our troops in Syria and Iran, What is Romney's Foreign policy and how exactly does it differ from Obama's.

Please try to refrain any reference to "apologizing for America".

Crickets?

Mitt's foreign policy? I expect it to be more pro-Israel than Barack's and a lot like the Bush/Barack policy without the wars. Drone attacks combined with special forces raids on terrorist strongholds.