Budget had nothing to do with it. - backwards typist
[ In Reply To ..]
2012 Funding Highlights:
• Provides $51.6 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an increase of 1.6 percent, or $0.8 billion over the 2012 enacted level when including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) resources. Within
tightly capped budget constraints, the Budget makes investments in key priorities including
the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, plus continues funding for critical initiatives
such as global health, climate change and food security.
• State Department and USAID OCO programs are described along
A couple of days after the attack, Obama issued this statement: "I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe."
If this could be done after the attack, why couldn't it have been done when the request was originally made? Is there any evidence that the original request was given due consideration and then rejected for budgetary reasons? Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who fielded security requests from the Libya U.S. diplomatic officials had said that money wasn’t the reason for the slim security in Libya.
"It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
“No, sir,” said Lamb.
No matter how the democratic side tries to spin this as budget cuts, it just wasn't the reason. The State Department just refused to grant extra security. Period.
Part of the funding of the State Department for 2012 included this:
"Provides $47 billion in funding for the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an increase of 1 percent, when excluding Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) resources. Significant levels of funding are continued for operations and assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Savings have been created through foreign assistance reductions in several countries.
A couple of days after the attack, Obama issued this statement: "I have directed my administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe."
If this could be done after the attack, why couldn't it have been done when the request was originally made? Is there any evidence that the original request was given consideration and then rejected because of the budget? Charlene Lamb, the State Department official who fielded security requests from the Libya U.S. diplomatic officials had said that money wasn’t the reason for the slim security in Libya.
"It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”
“No, sir,” said Lamb.
No matter how the democratic side tries to spin this as budget cuts, it just wasn't the reason. The State Department just refused to grant extra security. Period.