Today in its lead editorial the New York Times charged Republicans in Congress with complicity in the recent deaths of US embassy staffers, including the US ambassador, in Libya:

The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.

But, according to politico.com:

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn’t want to the appearance of needing increased security.

“The fact is, they [the State Department] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don’t want the presence of security,” Issa said.

Now, what again was that about “the ugly truth?”  There is one here, but it involves the even uglier lies of a certain publication once known as “the paper of record.”  Which might explain this ten year price chart:

This could be a great paper again.  But first it will have to clean out the smirking elitists who lie to your face because it suits their agenda.  Because they know what’s best for you.  The editorial editor seems like a pretty good place to start.