There is only one reason it is "secret" and that is because its very,
very bad news for Democrats!
How much are the Republicans willing to spend in order to have all this data
Maybe I reblicans want to win in November they should focus on actuall doing
something useful. @mountanman The numbers are released monthly
and are hardly a secret.
@ Mark. American tax payers have already wasted about 2 billion on the
disastrous Obamacare launch. Next up, insurance company bailouts because too few
young people will agree to pay for healthcare they will not receive. How's
that for a very expensive mess?
Will it be difficult to report those numbers on a weekly basis? I would be
shocked if the Obama administration doesn't already get a weekly report
from HHS.But I am also confident that Obama will thumb his nose at
congress and refuse to comply with the request/demand. His arrogance and
political enmity towards Republicans will keep that from happening.
spring steetThe most useful thing Republicans can do for the country
is to beat Democrats in November.
Silly Congress, didn't you know that Obama is the one who writes the
laws?Oh wait....The constitution says that it is the
House and Senate who make the laws, not the President. Maybe I should write a
letter to Obama to let him know.
Seems like a reasonable request. BO is going to be in office for 3 more years
and the ACA will as well.
@SC fan they my want to spend more time actually doing their jobs
and less time playing silly political games then.
and you'd believe barry and his buddies with the numbers? the same guy that
has a pen and a phone and is so honest that we have NO answers for fast and
furious, IRS, AP, Benghazi, ACA?
"is so honest that we have NO answers for fast and furious, IRS, AP,
Benghazi, ACA?"or is it "we have NO answers that we
BlowWhat are the answers that I don't like?........chirp
@ JoeBlow. If you are looking for honesty from Obama, you will never get it!
Obama got 3 Pinocchio's from Fact Check just yesterday because he is
dishonestly counting people who were previously enrolled in Medicaid but now
re-signed up for Medicaid as "new enrollees" on Obamacare! In other
words, he is dishonestly reporting even the very meager number of people who are
enrolling in his healthcare mess! His claim of 2 million (or 6 million depending
on the day) new enrollees turns out to be less than 380,000 actual new
enrollees! His pants are on fire!
"What are the answers that I don't like?........chirp"The answers that came out of all the various investigations. Benghazi - Pickering and Mullens did an extensive investigation. Certainly
their report had answers. Your claim? - No answersBenghazi -
Senate Intelligence Committee released a report This Week. No answers you
claim?Fast and Furious? Are you suggesting that there have been no
investigations?Are you suggesting that the GOP controlled house has
not investigated all of these?Of course there are answers.
Mark B: For a website that cost $2 billion, it shouldn't cost anything to
have this data compiled. It should be ready with the click of a button to create
a report. Joe Blow:Maybe you can answer these
questions:Where was President Obama during the Benghazi attack and
what was he doing? Sec. Defense Panetta and General Dempsey
testified they didn't speak with him after they were initially informed of
the attacks, yet those attacks continued on for six hours. This was
an act of war against the United States and we don't even know what the CoC
was doing. There is no record of him talking with anyone or issuing any
commands. If a doctor is negligent in the death of a patient, there
will be, for starters, lawsuits to hold the doctor responsible. Obama is
negligent in the death of these Americans-especially the last two who were
killed hours later after no help was sent. He neglected his CoC
responsibilities.Why isn't Obama being held responsible?
Seriously, it's okay with you that he ignored an attack on an American
consulate but attended the fundraiser he had the next day?
"Where was President Obama during the Benghazi attack and what was he
doing?"And why does this matter? Maybe he was in the bedroom.
Or the bathroom. What would have changed? What scenario as to where he was
changes anything?"Obama is negligent in the death of these
Americans-especially the last two who were killed hours later after no help was
sent. He neglected his CoC responsibilities."How was he
negligent? What could he have done? Are you suggesting that somehow troops
could have saved their lives after the attack started?"Why
isn't Obama being held responsible?"Responsible for what?
The attacks? Not having the embassy better protected? Not sending in troops or
the navy seals?Embassy attacks have happened throughout history.
Lots during Bush's leadership. You guys go through quite the cherry
picking exercise to insure that somehow this is different and that somehow Obama
is responsible.How many attacks occurred on Embassys in the 8 years
prior to Obama being elected? Who was held responsible for those.I
just want consistency
Why does it matter where he was? Seriously? Why bother having a Coc? If your
child was in the military, or serving in an embassy somewhere in the world,
would you want President Obama as the Commander-in Chief?You want a
man who goes to bed when Americans are being attacked and he continues to sleep
as the fighting continues instead of getting up, calling his cabinet, and going
to the Situation Room?Do you know the definition of criminal
negligence? "Recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting
another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the
same consequences)."Yes, there have always been embassy attacks.
Do you have a specific example of an attack resulting in an ambassador's
death in a very dangerous area, where there wasn't enough security,
additional security requests were ignored, or that investigations showed it
could have been prevented by the U.S. government?Obama is
responsible for the troops and the Americans serving abroad, even while
sleeping. If he doesn't do something (yes, like sending in additional
troops), who will? He gets those big perks because he has a big responsibility
as CoC. Wow.
"For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion
for the State Department Worldwide Security Protection programs; well below the
$2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the
administrations request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal
2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012."Ask Jason Chaffetz why
there was inadequate security.This was a breakdown on many levels.
Obama bears some blame. Clinton bears some blame.Congress bears some
blame. Any idea how many other security requests are being ignored
today? Lots I am sure.If it makes you sleep better, demonize
Clinton and Obama. People are far more concerned on placing blame
that working to insure that it does not happen again. That is
partisanship at its worst.Have you called your congressmen to
request that they allocate more money for Embassy security? Would you support
allocating more money? out of posts
Joe, how exactly do you assure it never happens again if the same people are in
charge and not held accountable?About the budget: Charlene
Lamb, Deputy Asst. Secretary for Diplomatic Security, under oath:"Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase
the security force, she said: 'No.'She added: "This
was an unprecedented attack in size." Asked again about budget issues, Lamb
said: "Sir, if it's a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover
that."The money was turned down because the State Department
budget had ballooned. Some of the expenses:$16 million for Kindles
($6,600 each)$7.9 billion for Obama's Global Health Initiative$1 billion for global climate change$2.2 billion to strengthen
democratic institutions in Pakistan.$4.5 million for art in embassiesNo, I don't know about any security requests. I'm not supposed
to know. If it were my job, I would know.Why would anyone support
more funding when there is already so much waste and abuse? Getting
the truth out there is not demonizing anyone, nor is it partisanship. It's
just getting the truth, which is what everyone should want, regardless of
party.Sorry you are out of posts.
What?You don't set any requirements on Obama.Do you
want the IRS after you?
Obama care is like buying a used car.It may look nice and shiny, but
the motor has a bad timing chain.
I see where Democrats crossed the isle to vote for this, something that you will
never see the republicans do they vote as a gang. Joe your wasting your
breath on people who change the subject when confronted with facts, or simply
ignore the truth in favor of "faith" in radio entertainers.The
truth has been available but they like the copy their "opinions" from
blogs and call it news.