Obama Administration Had $2 Billion in Extra Consulate Security Money When Benghazi Attack Occured

Well well well... just some more simple facts... Remember the blame game that was placed on GOP budget cuts??

Last week during congressional testimony from State Department officials who were on the ground in Libya, we heard over and over again that more security for the consulate in Benghazi was requested but denied. We also heard repeatedly from Democrats, including Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, claiming a lack of funding was at fault for less security in Benghazi during the time of the attack on 9/11 that left four Americans dead. State Department officials said funding had nothing to do with the situation and now, Chairman Darrell Issa has revealed the State Department is sitting on $2 billion for consulate security, but won't spend it.

Why won't the state dept. spend the money to upgrade.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

townhall.com...

reply to post by jibeho


Oh that money. It's probably pegged for his re-election campaign coffers......

Des

reply to post by jibeho


I would love to repost this.
However I don't see any mainstream news outlets carrying the story.
Google news search only mentions your website.
we need more sources.

reply to post by grey580


The source is Darrel Issa himself while speaking on "Face the Nation" and it is no surprise that you are not finding this anywhere else. There is a calculated move to keep this scandal buried. Just look at the front page of Sunday's New York Times. Not even a hint of Benghazi or the hearings anywhere.

Keep looking... you may see more by the end of the day.

Politico is running the story though. That's better than nothing

www.politico.com...

Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn't want to the appearance of needing increased security.

"The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don't want the presence of security," Issa said. "That is not how you do security."

With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue, Democrats have countered that House GOP leaders actually sought to cut funding for embassy security, which Issa tried to refute.

"You can't always look to [new] money when there's money sitting there," Issa said. "We're going through a 'Mission Accomplished' moment. Eleven years after Sept. 11 [2001], Americans were attacked by terrorists who pre-planned to kill Americans. That happened, and we can't be in denial."

Interesting!

www.politico.com...

reply to post by jibeho


The only issue here is that Issa is the same guy who's been trying to cut funding to the state dept.
www.nationalreview.com...

I'd like to see an independent source that can confirm his statement.

I might be a Dem. But if this is true it's time to put blame where it belongs. And if it's Obama so be it.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by grey580

 

The source is Darrel Issa himself while speaking on "Face the Nation" and it is no surprise that you are not finding this anywhere else. There is a calculated move to keep this scandal buried. Just look at the front page of Sunday's New York Times. Not even a hint of Benghazi or the hearings anywhere.

Keep looking... you may see more by the end of the day.

Politico is running the story though. That's better than nothing

www.politico.com...

This scandal is on the level of “Fast and Furious”.

And it is driving this administration insane that people will not let go of it.

Both of these examples of ineptness dwarf Watergate.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Fast & Furious and the Benghazi attack are just grossly incompetent handling of things.
People died and those in charge should be held accountable.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jibeho

 

The only issue here is that Issa is the same guy who's been trying to cut funding to the state dept.
www.nationalreview.com...

I'd like to see an independent source that can confirm his statement.

I might be a Dem. But if this is true it's time to put blame where it belongs. And if it's Obama so be it.

Agreed. Any attack on a US Embassy and any death of a US Citizen in such an attack should not be a partisan issue. In this case, They are pointing fingers at each other. The White is backing the bus over Hillary and the State Department, The State Department is Blaming the Intel.. community etc etc. He said she said and they cannot run fast enough from this tragedy.... That's bad and will truly result in partisan bickering.. This disaster is not good for an incumbent's campaign...

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by grey580

 

The source is Darrel Issa himself while speaking on "Face the Nation" and it is no surprise that you are not finding this anywhere else. There is a calculated move to keep this scandal buried. Just look at the front page of Sunday's New York Times. Not even a hint of Benghazi or the hearings anywhere.

Keep looking... you may see more by the end of the day.

Politico is running the story though. That's better than nothing

www.politico.com...

This scandal is on the level of “Fast and Furious”.

And it is driving this administration insane that people will not let go of it.

Both of these examples of ineptness dwarf Watergate.

edit on 15-10-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)

No one died in the throws of the Watergate scandal....

I thought the Right was complaining about Obama spending too much money?

And now they want him to spend more?


Oh right, they want it spent on killing people overseas, not helping Americans here at home, I forgot.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I thought the Right was complaining about Obama spending too much money?

And now they want him to spend more?


Oh right, they want it spent on killing people overseas, not helping Americans here at home, I forgot.

Spend More?? In this case they could have spent the $2 Billion that was ALREADY there!!!!!! NOT MORE!!

You are as predictable as my morning stool. Big difference in Embassy security spending vs. free Obama phones vs. endless govt. expansion and spending in the EPA, DOE etc etc

I don't expect you to comprehend the difference though because you equate embassy security to killing people overseas...

Plenty of embassies need security... Even Barbados!! BUT not Benghazi? which was attacked with an IED back in June which blew a hole in its perimeter wall big enough to get 40 men through it.

Embassies
www.usembassy.gov...

You're hilarious!!!! Do you work for Media Matters

Originally posted by HostileApostle
I thought the Right was complaining about Obama spending too much money?

And now they want him to spend more?


Oh right, they want it spent on killing people overseas, not helping Americans here at home, I forgot.

No...we want him to spend the money that is sitting in a fund to be used for security for American Embassies, to actually use it for that very purpose. Maybe if they had, 4 Americans wouldn't be dead right now. You just don't get it.

If you take off those narrow blinders, you might actually see, that the money was there, for that use, and they *chose* not to make our Embassy safe....

Des

reply to post by jibeho

Plenty of embassies need security... Even Barbados!! BUT not Benghazi?

There is no embassy in Benghazi.

You don't seem to have your facts straight.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by jibeho

 

Plenty of embassies need security... Even Barbados!! BUT not Benghazi?

There is no embassy in Benghazi.

You don't seem to have your facts straight.

I guess the Washington Post has it all wrong......Maybe they need your genius mind to write for them.....

Justice after Benghazi

By Editorial Board, Published: October 14

THE INVESTIGATION of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is beginning to look disturbingly familiar. After President Obama promised “justice” for the killing of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, FBI agents were dispatched to the country. But it was three weeks before they made their first visit to the site — which had been left unsecured. Libyan authorities have arrested several people, but it is not clear whether they had any role in the assault. Meanwhile, Libyan officials appear to be resisting direct U.S. involvement in the investigation.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Des

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by jibeho

 

The only issue here is that Issa is the same guy who's been trying to cut funding to the state dept.
www.nationalreview.com...

I'd like to see an independent source that can confirm his statement.

I might be a Dem. But if this is true it's time to put blame where it belongs. And if it's Obama so be it.

But as part of the Republican majority that has controlled the House the last two years, Mr. Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department’s two main security accounts.

Well, cutting a half-billion from security accounts when they are sitting on 2.2 billion really seems justifiable. If Issa is wrong someone will point it out, probably Elijah E. Cummings the ranking dem on the Oversight Committee.

I really respect and appreciate that you make justice a priority over political affiliation.

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by jibeho

 

Plenty of embassies need security... Even Barbados!! BUT not Benghazi?

There is no embassy in Benghazi.

You don't seem to have your facts straight.

I guess the Washington Post has it all wrong......Maybe they need your genius mind to write for them.....

Justice after Benghazi

By Editorial Board, Published: October 14

THE INVESTIGATION of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is beginning to look disturbingly familiar. After President Obama promised “justice” for the killing of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, FBI agents were dispatched to the country. But it was three weeks before they made their first visit to the site — which had been left unsecured. Libyan authorities have arrested several people, but it is not clear whether they had any role in the assault. Meanwhile, Libyan officials appear to be resisting direct U.S. involvement in the investigation.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Des

edit on 15-10-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

He's splitting hairs regarding the meaning of embassy and consulate... Good stuff!!

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


That's because I'm a Moderate.

Everything in moderation, including moderation.

And if the Republican party wasn't run by a bunch of crazy nutjobs. I'd be a Republican.

But I can't in good conscience vote for a party that talks religion and righteousness and then goes out and denies people their civil rights. Running on a platform of morality and then forcing your mistress to have an abortion.

That just sticks in my craw.

reply to post by Destinyone


There is a consulate in Benghazi, not an embassy.

Do you know the difference?

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by jibeho

 

Plenty of embassies need security... Even Barbados!! BUT not Benghazi?

There is no embassy in Benghazi.

You don't seem to have your facts straight.

you're right...the only embassy is in tripoli, which is guarded....questions i have is......does the state dept. have the authority to move security from barbados to libya, or from other more friendly countries to the middle east...or....does this require congressional approval?.......from the massive scale of the attack, what size of force would have been needed?....if there is a minimum head count of security personal for each embassy....was there even enough to send to libya, or was it already stretched so thin that additional money was needed?

the reason i'm asking, it has been the primary publicly stated goal of making obama a one term president, the republicans in congress are actually making it as difficult as possible for the president to have any success, and denying funds have been a way to do that.