Politics

[aknowledgeableperson]

Having a plan in place to respond would have given the time. Gates' comment concerned the lack of a plan added to the time to respond.

With regards to the budget cut it is up to the State Dept and the CIA to properly spend the money allocated. Maybe too much money was spent over-protecting facilities that didn't need it.

No matter what, an investigation should be able to put questions into the answered column.

[phuqueue]

Or maybe not enough money was spent protecting all facilities because not enough money was allocated. Even for you, that's some pretty lazy conjecture. The amount cut for 2012 alone amounted to 16% of the State Department request. That's not chump change, it's ridiculous to think you can cut that much money without consequences. You have no idea how the State Department even used the funds it did get -- how do you know they didn't pull personnel off of facilities in comparatively more secure places, and that it just still wasn't enough to protect every consular outpost in the world?

(We'll set aside, for the moment, the task of trying to decide which facilities are "secure" enough to draw down their security, but given that even the Pentagon has been the target of a successful terrorist attack, it is probably worth asking which facilities were "over-protected.")

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Or maybe not enough money was spent protecting all facilities because not enough money was allocated.

Yes, that could be the case also and the inquiry finds that out. As far as I am concerned everything is on the table to study.

[KCMax]

Having a plan in place to respond would have given the time. Gates' comment concerned the lack of a plan added to the time to respond.

With regards to the budget cut it is up to the State Dept and the CIA to properly spend the money allocated. Maybe too much money was spent over-protecting facilities that didn't need it.

No matter what, an investigation should be able to put questions into the answered column.

I agree with this and I don't understand why the GOP doesn't make this the central point of their criticism instead of overreaching and making this out to be Watergate. The public doesn't really care what Susan Rice said on what Sunday morning show and whether or not Obama used the word "terror." At worst its a bureaucratic bungling. The more they make it seem like a nefarious master plot by Obama to get re-elected, the more they seem crazy and more concerend with "getting Obama" than they are about American interests and the public isn't going to buy it.

[FangKC]

Some elements in the Republican Party seem focused on destroying presidents who are Democrats. It started with Clinton, then Obama. In some respects, it also happened to John Kerry, with the swiftboating.

Over past years, I've encountered these people and they literally seem to shake, start sweating, and blood veins pop out of their foreheads when one mentions a Democratic president. I've never seen the same reaction from Democrats towards Republican presidents. Disdain yes, but not such a visceral reaction.

[KCMax]

Some elements in the Republican Party seem focused on destroying presidents who are Democrats. It started with Clinton, then Obama. In some respects, it also happened to John Kerry, with the swiftboating.

Over past years, I've encountered these people and they literally seem to shake, start sweating, and blood veins pop out of their foreheads when one mentions a Democratic president. I've never seen the same reaction from Democrats towards Republican presidents. Disdain yes, but not such a visceral reaction.

I remember some far-leftists having "Bush Derangement Syndrome." But they weren't as mainstream as Tea Party members or Fox News contributors.

[AllThingsKC]

I've never seen the same reaction from Democrats towards Republican presidents. Disdain yes, but not such a visceral reaction.

[loftguy]

I've never seen the same reaction from Democrats towards Republican presidents. Disdain yes, but not such a visceral reaction.

I'm sure that someone, somewhere, found a way to compare Mother Teresa to Adolf.

Do you really believe that the experience with Bush equates to what we are seeing with Obama?

[FangKC]

I was speaking more in terms of people/politicians/donors who are actively seeking to destroy a democratic presidency. You didn't see Democrats working to destroy George W. Bush's presidency--and going as far as refusing to work with him.

[chrizow]

yeah, and a group of anarchist protestors are way more "fringe" than the very mainstream, national republicans and opinionators routinely espousing insane conspiracy theories about obama. the "fringe right" has simply become the norm, whereas there is no one even close to the "fringe left" in major office these days. for all the talk about obama being a "socialist" he is closer to a 1970s-1980s republican than he is a leftist of any stripe.

[AllThingsKC]

Do you really believe that the experience with Bush equates to what we are seeing with Obama?

No. I think it was perhaps worse with Bush, if not about the same.

[mean]

In-office Democrats seem less willing to try to turn molehills into mountainous scandals. They certainly derided Bush, but in terms of actively trying to make him look impeachable? I don't remember that happening, although whether that was tempered by post-9/11 nationalism, I can't say.

[chaglang]

Do you really believe that the experience with Bush equates to what we are seeing with Obama?

No. I think it was perhaps worse with Bush, if not about the same.

The Democrats never refused to participate in government. That's the major, obvious difference. Nothing like the current House of Representatives existed during the Bush administrations. Certainly not in the first six years.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The Democrats never refused to participate in government.

That is politics, which is way different than comparing someone to Hitler. And that politics was rewarded with the gains in the 2010 elections. Yes, there were some setbacks in 2012 but not enough of a lack of support to have the House GOP to change its way. Now on to 2014.

[chaglang]

The Democrats never refused to participate in government.

That is politics, which is way different than comparing someone to Hitler. And that politics was rewarded with the gains in the 2010 elections. Yes, there were some setbacks in 2012 but not enough of a lack of support to have the House GOP to change its way. Now on to 2014.

So you agree with me. Good.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Politics is politics and I think this saying also applies to politics - "All is fair in love and war."
Don't forget there were more than a few Dems after the 2008 election into 2009 that said they were in change with having the Presidency, the House, and a 60 vote majority in the Senate and it didn't matter what the GOP said, did, or wanted. It was time to implement the Democratic Party agenda. It was only when the Dems found out they had some cracks in their foundation (Dem senators from GOP leaning states) and the death of Kennedy that all of the sudden the GOP was not playing the game.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I remember some far-leftists having "Bush Derangement Syndrome." But they weren't as mainstream as Tea Party members or Fox News contributors.

From Wiki on Nancy Pelosi:

In the wake of President George W. Bush's reelection in 2004, several leading House Democrats believed that Democrats should pursue impeachment proceedings against the president. They asserted that Bush had misled Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and had violated the civil liberties of Americans by authorizing wiretaps without a warrant.

In May 2006, with an eye on the upcoming congressional elections–which offered the possibility of Democrats taking back control of the House for the first time since 1994–Pelosi told colleagues that, while the Democrats would conduct vigorous oversight of Bush administration policy, an impeachment investigation was "off the table". (A week earlier, she had told the Washington Post that, although Democrats would not set out to impeach the president, "you never know where" investigations might lead.)[29]

After becoming Speaker of the House in January 2007, Pelosi held firm against impeachment, notwithstanding strong support for that course of action among constituents in her home district. In the November 2008 election, Pelosi withstood a challenge for her seat by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who ran as an independent primarily because of Pelosi's refusal to pursue impeachment

Far-leftists??????????????

[AllThingsKC]

They certainly derided Bush, but in terms of actively trying to make him look impeachable?

Democrats scuttle proposal to impeach Bush

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush

The Democrats never refused to participate in government.

Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress.

Democrats walk out of Congress

IRS Official pleads the fifth

[phuqueue]

Yes, clearly, if we just spend enough money we can have perfectly safe spy outposts in the middle of a civil war. And for a few dollars more, unicorns and rainbows too.

Yeah nevermind I forgot that things don't cost money anyway so if you cleave a significant chunk out of the budget it will not have any effect at all and really it's all just a conspiracy masterminded by Obama