Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
However, we shouldn't be questioning what "said after the fact" but instead look into what happened before the attack.... Congress has been cutting funding for security at US embassies by hundreds of millions of dollars PER YEAR, to the tune of a billion dollars since Obama took office. I would like to know why we aren't holding an investigation into the people who voted to reduce funding for security to embassies.
|
Hate to break it to you, but the budget was never cut, it has actually gone up each and every year. That's just more democrat lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...31f9_blog.html
Politicians often play games with budget numbers, and so one must be careful at accepting numbers at face value. Note how Boxer asserted that House Republicans ?sought to cut more than $450 million from President Obama?s budget request.? That means she is talking about the president?s proposed budget ? which in any administration is often a pie-in-the-sky document.
In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
There is always a give-and-take between Congress and the executive branch about funding issues. Boxer spent many years on the Appropriations Committee, and we assume she does not believe that Congress should just rubber-stamp a president?s budget proposals.
The funding gap was a bit higher in 2011 and 2012, when Republicans controlled the House, but we don?t understand why Boxer would frame the security funding problem in such partisan terms. As journalist David Rohde has written, this is ?an enduring post-9/11 problem that both political parties ignore.?
Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans ?cut? the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years.
?The Department of State?s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,? said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.
The report added that baseline funding requests have not been fully funded since fiscal year 2010, but noted that Congress had been responsive in providing ?Overseas Contingency Operations? funds to the State Department in response to emergent security-driven requests, mainly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
?However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011,? the report pointedly noted. ?Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.?
Meanwhile, while the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attack lamented the failure of Congress to provide necessary resources ? and called for ?a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs? ? it fixed the blame for the lack of security squarely on State Department officials.
One huge problem was that the facility was deemed temporary ? as we have noted, most of the officials there were working for the CIA, not State ? and thus it could not be funded with standard overseas building funds. (Despite persistent news media reports, this was not a ?consulate??far from it.) After the fact, the ARB report recommended allowing for greater flexibility in use of such funds and requiring minimum security standards for such temporary facilities.
(A side note: Given that the U.S. effort in Benghazi was basically a CIA operation, State Department funding issues may be largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, we don?t have access to the classified version of the ARB report. But it is worth remembering that the CIA was responsible for security at the ?annex??where most of the Americans in Benghazi were housed.)
A key finding in the ARB report was: ?Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a ?shared responsibility? by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.?
During hearings into the attack last fall and this month, State Department officials were specifically asked if a lack of financial resources played a role in the attack. The answer was no.