Question for Obama / Clinton Supporters

archer wrote:

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.

Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opini ... z291aXl52N

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.

An opinion piece? rofllol

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21740773

The link above citing direct testimony by Nordstrom that the lack of security was driven by the need to reduce security resources. Cha Ching

Nowhere does it say security resources were reduced due to a lack of funds.

He said they reduced security resources as part of of an effort to "normalize relations". The only reasonable interpretation I see is they wanted things to appear "normal" and felt too much security somehow hindered that.

He twice requested additional security but got no response. I guess you interpret that as meaning they couldn't afford a phone call? lol

Nordstrom said Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the security levels "artifically low" due to a safe haven to fall back on. Again, no mention of funding.

So one more time, what state department officials have been quoted by name as saying a lack of funding caused a lack of security in Benghazi? What testimony supports it? Has an offical spokesperson for the Obama administration made any such claim?

Same thing happened in Somalia before Blackhawk Down. Our troops requested armor and were told that tanks weren't appropriate for the situation. They would have been awful handy for rescuing the trapped Rangers.

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

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.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21740773

The link above citing direct testimony by Nordstrom that the lack of security was driven by the need to reduce security resources. Cha Ching

Nowhere does it say security resources were reduced due to a lack of funds.

He said they reduced security resources as part of of an effort to "normalize relations". The only reasonable interpretation I see is they wanted things to appear "normal" and felt too much security somehow hindered that.

He twice requested additional security but got no response. I guess you interpret that as meaning they couldn't afford a phone call? lol

Nordstrom said Charlene Lamb wanted to keep the security levels "artifically low" due to a safe haven to fall back on. Again, no mention of funding.

So one more time, what state department officials have been quoted by name as saying a lack of funding caused a lack of security in Benghazi? What testimony supports it? Has an offical spokesperson for the Obama administration made any such claim?

Your interpretation is false. He did not say they reduced security resources as a part of an effort to normalize relations. His statement was requests for more security were blocked by a department policy to "normalize operations and reduce security resources." Why would they need to reduce security resources? Because they were underfunded.

For all you that are howling about the ambassador being killed as a result of the GOP cutting the state department budget, let me get this straight are you saying no democrat voted this spending cut? That this just slipped past Harry Reid in the democratic controlled senate? :Koolaid: have another glass

The administration was willing to sacrifice an ambassador and three other state department employees for political gain. Then they lied about it, trying to blame a stupid video that has been on the net for months all the while ignoring the significance of 9/11 and the intelligence they had received.

How did this administration gain politically from this tragedy? It seems that the only ones playing this up for political gain is Romney and the House GOP.

People died, Obama lied.

Something the Dog Said wrote: How did this administration gain politically from this tragedy? It seems that the only ones playing this up for political gain is Romney and the House GOP.

It isn't only the Republicans. CNN also was interviewing the mother of one of the slaughtered men who still doesn't know how her soon died. Ambassador Rice continues to stonewall her requests for info.

Just once I would like this administration to say, "We screwed up. We didn't listen to the real world concerns of our Libyan ambassador and provide him with the security he asked for."

Instead they got Rice and others running spin control and now the Dem talking points blaming the GOP. A more proactive administration would instead move security assets from another embassy or American military base. But all Team Obama does is cast blame.