Politics and Religion
Shades of Tootin' Timbow: Romney has dropped Libya from stump speech since debate
nuguy46
posted
2 / 6
FistFullOfFifties
posted
3 / 6
Timbow
posted
4 / 6
Sombitch Sombitch oh mah gawd call Snooki and Honey Boo Boo. Maybe the FB Right need to take over the RR campaign. LOL
The media has been pumped by the right getting all befucked over semantics. And NYT and LAT are reporting that people on the ground in Libya who participated in the attack say it was originally a response to the video. There are two separate issues seems to me. Should there have been more protection for the embassy which would have had to involve troops to combat RPGs which aren't usually standard issue at demonstrations? There are 60,000 embassy employees and many threats are launched every day. The budget cut by Republicans doesn't provide for having fortress level protection with enough military troops to repel what happened in Ben Ghazi.
The Diplomatic Security budget has been cut by Issa and Republicans since 2010 by 10%. Issa also stupidly named several people who are Libyans on the ground who are helping the US with intelligence. Doesn't get any dumber but Issa is the poster boy for dumb and dumber.
And the deeper question Chris Hayes just asked, is what response does the right want to be the response. Do you want to go to War in Libya--and with whom because we're talking about disparate milirary groups. Or more realistically did the right see a Campaign 2012 opportunity that isn't giving them the bang for their buck given Team Romney's calculation to completely axe Libya from his stump speech immediately after the gift he gave Obama in the debate.
Libya doesn't want mercenary boots on the ground or US Marines protecting the embassies and neither does the Pentagon whose personnel largely don't change whatever party is in the WH.
Diplomats often complain they have too much security from the state department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and can't get their jobs done.
-- Modified on 10/21/2012 8:24:31 AM
The media has been pumped by the right getting all befucked over semantics. And NYT and LAT are reporting that people on the ground in Libya who participated in the attack say it was originally a response to the video. There are two separate issues seems to me. Should there have been more protection for the embassy which would have had to involve troops to combat RPGs which aren't usually standard issue at demonstrations? There are 60,000 embassy employees and many threats are launched every day. The budget cut by Republicans doesn't provide for having fortress level protection with enough military troops to repel what happened in Ben Ghazi.
The Diplomatic Security budget has been cut by Issa and Republicans since 2010 by 10%. Issa also stupidly named several people who are Libyans on the ground who are helping the US with intelligence. Doesn't get any dumber but Issa is the poster boy for dumb and dumber.
And the deeper question Chris Hayes just asked, is what response does the right want to be the response. Do you want to go to War in Libya--and with whom because we're talking about disparate milirary groups. Or more realistically did the right see a Campaign 2012 opportunity that isn't giving them the bang for their buck given Team Romney's calculation to completely axe Libya from his stump speech immediately after the gift he gave Obama in the debate.
Libya doesn't want mercenary boots on the ground or US Marines protecting the embassies and neither does the Pentagon whose personnel largely don't change whatever party is in the WH.
Diplomats often complain they have too much security from the state department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and can't get their jobs done.
-- Modified on 10/21/2012 8:24:31 AM