Congratulations, House Republicans!

The progressive and liberal answer to anything.

No, joint,

Is that like the huge leap not to reveal evidence by using executive privilege? Or the huge leap to withhold e-mails? Or like the huge leap to blame a video instead of losing an election?

Quote:

Unfortunately, joint, you have virtually no contact with reality. Nor do your cites.

That would be sites.

I guess this is just another example of you having **** for brains and being out of touch with reality.

3. Talk about irrational paranoia. The video and Benghazi didn't sway the election.

What is clear is that the whole Benghazi thing is purely blatantly political, blown wildly out of proportion by the GOP,

They do keep mentioning Benghazi....

BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL! Ex Military and CIA Committee: Obama and Hillary Did It

One former CIA agent, Clare Lopez was quoted as saying:

“The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures.”

She blamed the Obama administration for allowing $500 million dollars worth of weapons to enter the country and into Al Qaeda’s hands:

“Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea. They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..”

“The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this

The GOP sharply cut funding for diplomatic facilities.

Budget numbers, though, actually show the overall diplomatic security budget has ballooned over the past decade.

Democrats point to modest decreases in funding in recent years, and the fact that Congress has approved less than was requested. But Congress often scales back the administration's requests, and not just for the State Department.

And the complaints tend to overlook the fact that the overall security budget has more than doubled since fiscal 2004.

But using that excuse has no bearing on what happened. Or explain to me why the military could not be sent in because of that.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank breaks it all down:
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.
[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

That's not the real issue.

Military didn't intervene because they were not requested.