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.
Didn't find specifics. I'm not going to wade through another 40 page document in search of this. If you've got specifics, post 'em.
Nothing could be "too critical" of Clinton for me, by the way. I think she's a horrible person, though probably an effective politician - sad how those seem to go hand in hand.
I won't post 'em for four reasons: I don't know how to copy from PDF; the explanations are too long to post; hat I post wouldn't satisfy you; and laziness should not be rewarded.
Both recent reports have easily recognizable sections re pre-Benghazi security issues and testimony from decision-makers, including ones held responsible for mismanagement and lack of leadership.
imo, it came down to key officials not considering what was at the time a mere 'temporary' outpost significant enough to warrant added resources despite the known dangers.
I won't post 'em for four reasons: I don't know how to copy from PDF; the explanations are too long to post; hat I post wouldn't satisfy you; and laziness should not be rewarded.
Both recent reports have easily recognizable sections re pre-Benghazi security issues and testimony from decision-makers, including ones held responsible for mismanagement and lack of leadership.
imo, it came down to key officials not considering what was at the time a mere 'temporary' outpost significant enough to warrant added resources despite the known dangers.
Which "key officials"?
Further "not significant enough to warrant added resources" because it was deemed a "temporary outpost" does, in fact, point to money being an issue/concern.
You got a link to the PDF you're talking about, at least?
Further "not significant enough to warrant added resources" because it was deemed a "temporary outpost" does, in fact, point to money being an issue/concern.
You got a link to the PDF you're talking about, at least?
Both reports name specific officials, who've been named in prior reports. The report you read was a State Department/Administration investigation so didn't name names.
The Benghazi Mission’s requests for even the most basic security measures were impacted by the lack of dedicated funding made available by the State Department. Senior officials within the State Department were well aware of the funding implications associated with continuing the Benghazi Mission into 2012. Jeffrey D. Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, testified:
What we were trying to … figure out was, how could we make a compelling enough argument that in the zero sum game that we have in terms of our budget and our resources, that we could find enough resources to keep Benghazi operating through the critical transition period? [sic]
Further "not significant enough to warrant added resources" because it was deemed a "temporary outpost" does, in fact, point to money being an issue/concern.
Negative.
In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
Lamb responded, “No, sir.”
Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya to retain a 16-man team of military personnel who had been protecting diplomats.
Well a little consistency would be nice, where was all the criticism in the past. No this doesn't have anything to do with politics, the critics just want to make sure this never happens again and that is why they spent a rather large majority of the hearings on the video.
If it were George W Bush on trial rather than Hillary, then Dems would be screaming for his blood and I think we all know this. The Republicans have called Obama on the carpet for a number of scandals. Democrats consistently downplay, saying that it's no big deal and making excuses. When George W was in, it was Democrats who were constantly making accusations, demanding justice and pointing out the same sorts of things. For example, invading Iraq on a completely false premise.
One of the biggest reasons I've lost all faith in Democrats and Republicans is because they are inconsistent. Right and wrong and accountability shift drastically depending entirely upon the letter next to the name of the accused.
See the post above yours - taken directly from the GOP report.
"The Benghazi Mission’s requests for even the most basic security measures were impacted by the lack of dedicated funding made available by the State Department."
The State Dept had over 1 billion in cash on hand before the attack. The comment above implicates the State Dept. They failed to allocate cash where it might have been needed.
If your goal is to pretend that this all boils down to a lack of cash you'll have to do better than that. If your goal is to somehow pin this on Republicans you'll have a lot of typing ahead of you because it's a nonsense argument.
Civilian leadership in the State Dept is at fault for a lack of security. That same civilian leadership completely botched the response, what there was of it, to the attack.
The Benghazi Mission’s requests for even the most basic security measures were impacted by the lack of dedicated funding made available by the State Department. Senior officials within the State Department were well aware of the funding implications associated with continuing the Benghazi Mission into 2012. Jeffrey D. Feltman, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, testified:
What we were trying to … figure out was, how could we make a compelling enough argument that in the zero sum game that we have in terms of our budget and our resources, that we could find enough resources to keep Benghazi operating through the critical transition period? [sic]
(emphasis mine)
Sure sounds like issues with money to me.
Benghazi was a temporary mission, so did not receive dedicated funding.
Read further and you'll see that funding was never an issue for physical security.
Unless a budget is infinity, there will be 'issues of money'. That's where the mismanagement, lack of leadership, and marginalizing Benghazi come in.
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.
