Well well, what do you know?

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/budget/news/2012/09/18/38352/diplomats-national-security-and-the-house-budget/

It was an investigation under the Reagan administration that made recommendations for minimum levels of diplomatic security (after many such security incidents in the 80s, even after the Tehran thing). Most of our embassies do not meet these minimum security requirements, and Republicans keep cutting the budget for security and construction, and then they have the gall to blame the President over it.

Not surprising, of course. They keep blaming Obama for all the problems they've caused, like the military cuts that are the fault of their own irresponsible budget sequestration plan.

I've said for a long time that the problem of discourse in America is that one side is just determined to lie and cheat its way to victory. It's hard to fight someone who has no scruples.

When voting in Canadian elections, I often feel like I have no option that I can truly identify with but then when I look at the US I feel a little better, at least we have many different options. Being stuck choosing between Democrats and Republicans every single election must grow old real fast.

Actually, I think the criticism was that there is a bunch of Marines in France guarding the french ambassador.

Yet no Marines in Libya, to guard the Libyan ambassador.

Which would be like having a security team at your bank, and posting them all in the break room and the bathroom while nobody is guarding the tellers or safe.

Take the pointless security in France, a country that SHOULD be able to protect our ambassador.  Put said security Libya... a place with shakey security... at best...

Seems like a pretty common sense move.  Not sure why anyone would defend such crappy security planning. 

If there is anything wrong with American politics, it's the rush for "gotcha" moments without bothering to actually look at what people are saying and deconstructing their arguements.