Does any one else on this forum find it confusing that the unionista's & the progressives on this forum make big issue with those who offshore production while attempting to control costs yet give those who offshored the security at the embassy a virtual pass on the subject. Or are they not capable of equating the similarities?
Security was offshored to a Scot-Welsh company which in turn hired locals as the cost for a years security was a little over $300K or about the amount it would have required to keep one American there. I have issues with this:
1) Why would you hire people for security if you don't know if you can trust them?
2) Why should we be there if we can't afford to be?
There is something about this whole statesman thing that reeks of really bad BS .