FredHayek wrote: If you have less money, you should spend it where it is needed more. And ignoring Libya to keep the budgets up in other posts shows a misplaced set of priorities.
You should write a strongly-worded letter to the teabagger caucus and the GOTP in the House and let 'em know...
FredHayek wrote: If you have less money, you should spend it where it is needed more. And ignoring Libya to keep the budgets up in other posts shows a misplaced set of priorities.
You should write a strongly-worded letter to the teabagger caucus and the GOTP in the House and let 'em know...
Once again the impotent left running the state department doesn't know how to react to a budget cut by recasting priorities. They are used to just spending more like Obama taught them, even if we don't have the money.
State Department Lackey: What do we do!?! Our budget has been cut! Should we buy security for our ambassador in a dangerous posting? Or for the new charging outlet for our Chevy Volts? Another brilliant call from Hilary's team.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Has anyone on the left yet posted a link quoting someone from the state department who was actually involved with Benghazi saying that they didn't have enough security because they were underfunded? Is there any testimony supporting that? Has an offical spokesperson from the Obama administration even made that claim yet? A link would be appreciated, if you have one.
With your arguement, you are basically calling the Obama state department totally inept. Those funds go to over 200 embassies world wide. Surely the state department must of figured out to use their "limited" security budget more for embassies in the Middle East than say in New Zealand, Canada, or Switzerland. Or were they too stupid to figure that out, which is what you are basically saying.
From what I see, the most recent appropriations bill which covered Embassy security was H.R. 2055. It had a very bipartisan vote of 296-121 with almost the same number of Democrats (149) as Republicans (147) voting for it.
I'm calling the ADMITTED $331 million budget-cuts by the GOTP a causative factor. You want more research? You know how to use Goggle as well as I do. May I suggest that if you want FACTS you ignore the drivel from RedState, DrudgeRetort, WorldNutDaily, FauxNews, and the rest of the propaganda-as-"fair-and-balanced" crap.
There have been plenty of posts here with links supporting the fact that the embassy attack was not related to a lack of funding for security.
I haven't seen one post with a link to a quote from anyone that was there, any testimony, or any official Obama administration spokesperson claiming that a lack of funding was responsible. Nor can I find anything with my searches. So far all I see is unsubstantiated posts from the same people who were wrong before about the Benghazi attack being caused by clips from a movie.
I guess the most telling evidence will be the VP debate tonight. If Biden makes no mention of it, then that would say all you need to know since that would be something he'd definitly bring up if he could back it up. If he does bring it up, it will be interesting to see what he has to support it.
Facts don't seem to matter to those whose sole goal is to bash the GOP and protect Obama.
From the congressional hearing “was specifically told [by Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost.”
BTW which is more important, buying a fleet of Chevy Volts for the Vienna post or protecting our ambassador in Lybia?
pineinthegrass wrote: Benghazi wasn't about a movie, and neither was it about funding.
Nordstrom addressed the diplomatic security issue in an Oct. 1 email to a congressional investigator. He said his requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources."
A memo Tuesday by the Oversight Committee's Democratic staff provided details of Nordstrom's interview with the panel's investigators. In that interview, Nordstrom said he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March 2012 and July 2012 requesting additional diplomatic security agents for Benghazi, but he received no responses.
He stated that Charlene Lamb, the deputy assistant secretary for international programs, wanted to keep the number of U.S. security personnel in Benghazi artificially low. He said Lamb believed the Benghazi facilities did not need any diplomatic security special agents because there was a residential safe haven to fall back to in an emergency.
For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's Worldwide Security Protection program -- well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" -- a charge Republicans rejected.
Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan's budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.
It is still too early for the slinging of accusations and the holding of hearings.....let the investigation into the incident continue and see what the results are. Yesterday's fiasco was one of the most blatantly partisan hack jobs I have seen in a long time....and in trying to embarrass Obama and give Romney some much needed foreign policy help they not only caused the GOP to look vengeful, but they endangered the safety of CIA agents in Libya and the classified nature of what they are doing there.
Poor guy. Hilary has found a retired diplomat to take over for the murdered Libyan ambassador. Hopefully this time they let his security team have ammunition. And not tell Al Quaida where the safe house is.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Another brilliant call from Hilary's team.
crap. 
