Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A liberal talking point that sprang up in the aftermath of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was that the State Department would have totally sent more security, but those evil Republicans, like, totally cut their budget man.
Setting aside that the budget cuts were a bi-partisan effort, ongoing testimony before Congress shows that the problem wasn’t a lack of money. In fact, there was no problem at all.
Quote:
Was the refusal to provide more security caused by budget cuts to embassy security? “No, sir,” Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, told the committee.
On top of that fact, more Democrats voted in favor of the budget cuts than did Republicans:
Quote:
House Democrats opened Wednesday’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing by attacking Republicans for cuts to embassy security funding — cuts that only happened thanks to overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings.
In fact, more House Democrats – 149 of them — voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them.
Regardless of whose idea it was the budget argument falls flat.
When Clinton cut military spending he didn't cut the missions, yet the military still performed.
The same is true of the state department. They have funds available for such things as an increased security risk. I am 100% certain that if requested that the Marines would have deployed more men to the Libyan embassy.
The more honest and plausable answer is that the Obama admin disagreed with the Ambassadors threat assesment and denied his request.
A liberal talking point that sprang up in the aftermath of the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was that the State Department would have totally sent more security, but those evil Republicans, like, totally cut their budget man.
Setting aside that the budget cuts were a bi-partisan effort, ongoing testimony before Congress shows that the problem wasn’t a lack of money. In fact, there was no problem at all.
I haven't seen Lamb's name anywhere today. I wonder why that is. No I know why that is.
Regardless of whose idea it was the budget argument falls flat.
When Clinton cut military spending he didn't cut the missions, yet the military still performed.
The same is true of the state department. They have funds available for such things as an increased security risk. I am 100% certain that if requested that the Marines would have deployed more men to the Libyan embassy. The more honest and plausable answer is that the Obama admin disagreed with the Ambassadors threat assesment and denied his request.
Outstanding words and I bet they stand because progs won't want to question them. They know what that would cause to arise so they will just stand back and wait for them to die.
Thanks for creating aaa thread on this to draw more attention to it.
Too many think it's their battle cry and they are mistaken about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
