THE LIES OF BRAVO: EXPOSED!

Seems real odd that democrats find so much joy in childish bullshit with so many critical issues everywhere to be found.

Seems real odd to me that democrats would use Benghazi to point out ANYTHING even remotely construed to be 'lying.'

Americans don't believe all the 'witch hunt' ignorance, or that republicans were wrong in calling for investigations.

Jeez .. grow up.
 
When they can't run on their policies and the general public has a low opinion of them the Republicons always resort to mud slinging. Remember Clinton's second term? Dig up some shit, or in this case make up some shit and start slinging it. Their strategy is unmistakable and has been used over and over. Get a grip...
 
Crashk said:
When they can't run on their policies and the general public has a low opinion of them the Republicons always resort to mud slinging. Remember Clinton's second term? Dig up some shit, or in this case make up some shit and start slinging it. Their strategy is unmistakable and has been used over and over. Get a grip...
Click to expand...

Oh boy....I didn't hear about it yet.....what did those nasty Republicans make up ?

Benghazi wasn't attacked by terrorists or there really was an attempt made by Hillary to save them ?....
The IRA didn't infringe on the civil rights and harrass conservative groups while at the same time granting liberals groups tax free status ?
Or the government really didn't demand the phone records of white house reporters on a witch hunt for an alleged leaker...

Or did the Republicans 'dig up' Benghazi and API scandal and the IRS unconstitutional civil rights violations.

Do tell us.....
 
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Made up story? No. De-fund security for a few yrs and then scream 'cover up' when your leadership wanted this to happen and was probably (IMO) behind the anti-muslim video that started the unrest in Libya and Egypt at the time.


IRS?
First and foremost, the IRS is supposed to investigate non-profit status on an organization before granting that status and the groups must be involved in social justice not political activity. The Tea Party and its related groups fails miserably on that count alone. Secondly, the IRS investigation into Tea Party groups began in 2010 at the request of seven Republicans targeted by the Tea Party in primary battles.

I think this is a good thing and hopefully the first nail in the Citizens United coffin.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Well apparently you do, I would even defend you if Howey was trying to get rid of you.
Click to expand...

Don't be a retard. Howey isn't trying to ban Bravo, where did you get that notion? He is simply pointed out that Bravo is an ignorant senile drunken idiot.
 
Crashk said:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Made up story? No. De-fund security for a few yrs and then scream 'cover up' when your leadership wanted this to happen and was probably (IMO) behind the anti-muslim video that started the unrest in Libya and Egypt at the time.


IRS?
First and foremost, the IRS is supposed to investigate non-profit status on an organization before granting that status and the groups must be involved in social justice not political activity. The Tea Party and its related groups fails miserably on that count alone. Secondly, the IRS investigation into Tea Party groups began in 2010 at the request of seven Republicans targeted by the Tea Party in primary battles.

I think this is a good thing and hopefully the first nail in the Citizens United coffin.
Click to expand...

Didn't you try passing that lie off before.....?....well, the response is the same from me

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate......

Try again.
 
NOVA said:
Didn't you try passing that lie off before.....?....well, the response is the same from me

Charlene Lamb Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the Department of State already testified under oath that
funding had nothing to do with the decision to not increase security at the Embassy or Consulate......

Try again.
Click to expand...

So, why did you post the budget item in another thread, you are saying here it didn't matter and in another thread it did, so which is it Vanilla? Did they have money for security or not?

And another thing, how much foreign security forces are allowed at embassies? Can we move in as many troops as we wish or are we limited?
 
Rana said:
So, why did you post the budget item in another thread, you are saying here it didn't matter and in another thread it did, so which is it Vanilla? Did they have money for security or not?

And another thing, how much foreign security forces are allowed at embassies? Can we move in as many troops as we wish or are we limited?
Click to expand...


Its you lack of reading comprehension again Rana....try again....I DIDN'T SAY IT DIDN'T MATTER.....

Charlene Lamb Deputy testified that funding had nothing to do with the decision ....THEIR DECISION to not beef up
security... Don't you understand the difference.....?
The fact is, their was plenty of money to provide more security, THEY decided not to , money had nothing to do with it.

But for those of you that keep bringing up cuts in the budget, my other post shows that to be bullshit......money was not the problem, incompetence was.

Hopefully, pinheads will put that LIE to rest.

 
If Bravo keeps this up this may become the biggest thread on the forum.

Keep up the lies and misinformation, Bravs!
 
NOVA said:
Its you lack of reading comprehension again Rana....try again....I DIDN'T SAY IT DIDN'T MATTER.....

Charlene Lamb Deputy testified that funding had nothing to do with the decision ....THEIR DECISION to not beef up
security... Don't you understand the difference.....?
The fact is, their was plenty of money to provide more security, THEY decided not to , money had nothing to do with it.

But for those of you that keep bringing up cuts in the budget, my other post shows that to be bullshit......money was not the problem, incompetence was.

Hopefully, pinheads will put that LIE to rest.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:
 
NOVA said:
Its you lack of reading comprehension again Rana....try again....I DIDN'T SAY IT DIDN'T MATTER.....

Charlene Lamb Deputy testified that funding had nothing to do with the decision ....THEIR DECISION to not beef up
security... Don't you understand the difference.....?
The fact is, their was plenty of money to provide more security, THEY decided not to , money had nothing to do with it.

But for those of you that keep bringing up cuts in the budget, my other post shows that to be bullshit......money was not the problem, incompetence was.

Hopefully, pinheads will put that LIE to rest.
Click to expand...

So, funding wasn't the issue according to Vanilla and his sources.

Ok, so what about the other question, in foreign countries are the number of troops we can have at our embassies limited or do you believe we can have as much security as we wish?
 
Rana said:
So, funding wasn't the issue according to Vanilla and his sources.
Not MY sources, it was testimony under oath.....

Ok, so what about the other question, in foreign countries are the number of troops we can have at our embassies limited or do you believe we can have as much security as we wish?
Click to expand...

Of course there is a limit....we can't send 20,000 troops to every embassy for protection....but here is a fact about Benghazi...
We already know that the embassy in Benghazi had no Marine guards at the time of the attack.
(I guess thats not quite enough to do the job)

With a hat tip to Mark Thompson at TIME, though, we now know that the Marines in Cairo were not allowed to carry live ammunition, per the orders of US Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson. He directs us to this Nightwatch blog post which reports:
She did not permit US Marine guards to carry live ammunition, according to USMC blogs. Thus she neutralized any US military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.
In this respect, she did not defend US sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office. She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.

With this level of incompetence, it don't really matter how many Marines are there does it....


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top