Benghazi was bad, right? Nah, lets make ALL the embasies that way!

[Surfd]

Jesus christ, the republican party is a house of raving lunatics.

Remember Benghazi? The under funded / poorly protected US embassy that came under siege several years ago? Sure you do. They have been screaming about how terrible and evil and aweful it was for nearly half a decade. So even if you wanted to, you are never allowed to forget it.

Unless of course, you are one of the pack of senators who are insane enough to try to pass a bill that will practically turn every US embassy on earth into another potential Benghazi all in a ham-fisted attempt to railroad through a forced relocation of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Then it's all ok. I mean, I guess willfully endangering the lives of THOUSANDS of embassy employees in HUNDREDS of embassies around the world is just the cost of doing business when you are trying to push your own political agenda of dumbfuckery. But remember, Hillary is still satan incarnate because she let Benghazi happen on her watch.

Yes, lets just pretend that holding embassy funding on a global scale hostage so they can wave their political dick around in a place they have no business waving it around in is a good idea. I mean, the Cheeto elect shitting on decades of foreign policy by fucking about with Taiwan was bad enough, but these dumbfucks are trying to weasel a way into to forcing the USA to essentially make a statement that has the potential to destabilize the entire middle east (which is already a roiling shithole as it is), all so they can point at something and say "look, we got something done". And their way of doing that is to go full fucking retard.

Christ it is going to be a long fucking 4 years.....

Cant wait to see how the rightwingers here justify this bit of mindboggling stupidity.

And a link to the actual proposed bill, for those too lazy to pick the link out of the main article:
http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/...lem%20Bill.pdf
(the important part starts on page 3, line 17).

[Independent voter]

Meh, they propose bills all the time that never even get voted on. It's just some congressman who wants to please some voters back home.

It's definitely not in the interest of the country.

[Exedore]

Sensationalist titles which construe facts still catch people who want to be caught.

The article is just about political maneuvering to maybe tie a caveat to funding embassy security. It's just pure speculation at this point.

P.S. Benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy.

[Surfd]

I just find it incredibly ironic. I mean, this is pretty much the equivalent of attacking someone for allegedly kicking puppies, and then as soon as that person is no longer an issue / relevant, turning around and talking with your buddies about the best way to go about kicking puppies.

And these are the fine upstanding individuals that the masses of America decided to hand the keys to the kingdom to. You will be lucky if the whole place doesn't collapse on top of you due to the singularity of stupid that seems to be preparing to move into office at the end of the month.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

Wait I am confused.

So Benghazi was a terrible tragedy due to the catastrophic lack of foresight and ability of Hillary Clinton then?

I mean to criticize the plans of these Republicans, which they should be criticized as our politicians are fucking terrible, you have to acknowledge the abject failure and incompetence of Hillary Clinton.

- - - Updated - - -

Sensationalist titles which construe facts still catch people who want to be caught.

The article is just about political maneuvering to maybe tie a caveat to funding embassy security. It's just pure speculation at this point.

P.S. Benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy.

Yeah, Slate is pretty terrible.

I am sure this falls under "fake news" everyone is talking about, but I just find the outrage over this odd given they are using Bengazi as a starting point.

[Surfd]

The article is just about political maneuvering to maybe tie a caveat to funding embassy security. It's just pure speculation at this point.

Umm, exactly what part of that bill was pure speculation? I directly linked it. The wording is pretty explicit, with pretty much zero room for any kind of interpretation other then "move the Israel embassy to Jerusalem or we hold pretty much all important embassy funds hostage for the next several years".

- - - Updated - - -

I am sure this falls under "fake news" everyone is talking about, but I just find the outrage over this odd given they are using Bengazi as a starting point.

So, let me guess. You didn't even read the article, and completely ignored the fact that there is a link, directly to the proposed bill, off the senators own .gov web extention, with a freaking guide holding your hand pointing you directly to the important page and line, and just magically decided the news must be fake?

Why the hell even bother posting then.

And I am not sure exactly why you find the "outrage" odd. But maybe I should spell it out for you grade school style:
Apparently Benghazi was a major scandal because it was underfunded, poorly protected and came under attack putting American lives at risk. And every republican with a working mouth wanted to make sure that you knew that Hillary was somehow responsible for it. It was bad. It was evil. It was an outrage. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Yet somehow the very same people who were frothing at the mouth about Hillary and Benghazi have decided that intentionally holding funding for "Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance" hostage in an effort to get their political agenda approved is just another day at the office. That should be incredibly comforting to all those people in the embassies around the world who will have 50% of their budget held hostage (and if i read the bill right, that is only the 2017 budget. They want to withhold ALL of the 2018 and 19 budget unless it is used exclusively for construction on the Jerusalem Embassy).

The complete double standard here should raise a few eyebrows, but apparently anything can be handwaved away if you just pretend not to look at it.

- - - Updated - - -

P.S. Benghazi was a consulate, not an embassy.

I stand corrected then. That makes what these dumbasses are proposing even worse, since unless I am mistaken, a consulate is usually subordinate to an embassy, meaning that this effectively hits farther up the foodchain, making it a bit more of a significant matter.

[Mormolyce]

Wait I am confused.

So Benghazi was a terrible tragedy due to the catastrophic lack of foresight and ability of Hillary Clinton then?

I mean to criticize the plans of these Republicans, which they should be criticized as our politicians are fucking terrible, you have to acknowledge the abject failure and incompetence of Hillary Clinton.

This is a logic failure. He's saying that in order to accept a criticism of Hillary re: Benghazi, you must apply the same criticism to this bill being put forward by a Republican.

He doesn't have to accept anything.

Let me break it down for you. Tom and Mary both do X.

Person A: "Mary did X, therefore she is bad!"
Person B: "If doing X makes you bad, then Tom is also bad as he also did X."

You: "Then person B must accept that Mary is bad".

Non sequitur. It does not follow.

[mmolurker]

didnt benghazi happen because hillary refused to respond to the ambassador's requests for help for ages?

[Wells]

didnt benghazi happen because hillary refused to respond to the ambassador's requests for help for ages?

A) This isn't google.
B) no.

[Surfd]

This is a logic failure. He's saying that in order to accept a criticism of Hillary re: Benghazi, you must apply the same criticism to this bill being put forward by a Republican.

Actually, it is more about pointing out the incredible double standard of these people raking Hillary over the coals for "failing to protect the American people at Benghazi" (by whatever means she failed them), and then turning around and trying to pass a bullshit bill that literally attempts to halve the Security budget of every embassy on the planet unless the government caves to your demands.

You don't get to point at your opponent and scream "Burn the witch" and then turn around and hop on a broom and fly off into the sunset without somebody pointing out what a giant fucking hypocrite you are.

[Nadiru]

Wake me up when this has gotten out of any house of Congress. I mean, it won't, so I guess maybe wake me up tomorrow morning.

[Exedore]

Umm, exactly what part of that bill was pure speculation? I directly linked it. The wording is pretty explicit, with pretty much zero room for any kind of interpretation other then "move the Israel embassy to Jerusalem or we hold pretty much all important embassy funds hostage for the next several years"

Here's the full details:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...senate-bill/11

It was read and referred to committee. It will likely remain there to die, like most bills. Saying something ridiculous and controversial gets attention on the issue. And that's what politicians want; they don't care that the bill will go nowhere. I'm sure if you searched the Library of Congress, you'd find other ridiculous bills. If this bill ever gets out of committee, then I'll start caring.

didnt benghazi happen because hillary refused to respond to the ambassador's requests for help for ages?

Not exactly.

• Ambassador Stevens requested more security, but it wasn't approved. Nothing special here.
• The Benghazi facility had poor physical security and this was made known to the regional administrators. I believe it was recommended to not be used. Again, nothing special here.
• The facility was attacked in a planned assault by a group of terrorists. We've had other embassies attacked before (Iran anyone...). It could be viewed as an intelligence failure, but intelligence isn't perfect.
• The state department was made aware of the attack, but it doesn't immediately go to Hillary. There are various regional chiefs it goes to first.
• No rescue mission or other intervention was ordered while the attack was on-going. This is controversial and the waters are muddied. But no criminal action can be proven - the executive branch just did a terrible job.
• The Obama administration and Hillary claimed it was a protest against a youtube video and did so for about a week. Internal communications revealed that they knew it was a terrorist attack from the start.

The issue for Hillary and by extension the Obama administration is the attempt at a cover-up and misdirection. Everything else was just poor planning and handling of a crisis.

[belleflop]

The majority of proposed bills get assigned to committees and then die due to in-action. Why sensationalize something that won't make it anywhere? What's the point? Also this isn't even like in the top 1000 of crazy bills proposed. There's websites that keep track of this stuff, check um out it's a fun read!

[primalmatter]

If a embassy is attacked everyone inside is fucked unless it is a lone gunman scenario. If the people turn on you well your done. It isn't a armed garrison numbers will overwhelm you and if they have any kind patrol or presence around the building you can't get air lifted out.

It is a shitty deal but odds are what they are talking about won't really make a difference one way or the other.