U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.Its going to take time to find these people.

If that is the case why has the FBI not gone to Benghazi yet? The fact that the Administration says that they sent the FBI just makes this story roll on and on.

The FBI will be in Benghazi before the week is out. Security/logistic issues probbably delayed the insertion. I think you guys are watching too many movies if you think the US is just going to send a team of super FBI agents to solve crimes and kill bad guys. We have to make sure the area is safe/secure prior to putting these people on the ground.Otherwise its this administrations fault for putting civilians in harms way... Its like no matter what, someone is doing something wrong...

So the area is so dangerous that it's taking over three weeks to get the FBI in there but our Ambassador didn't have adequate protection?

 

[Sam Quentin]

I still remember all of the criricism that was heaped on Bush for not immediately running out of a schoolrom screaming "We've been attacked!"

That criticism was idiotic and completely partisan. Which makes it a good analogy. Do you feel the same about this?

somewhatI don't like that for almost a a day there was no official response at all and then for 9 days they didn't come clean on it.I don't like that they rounded up and arrested the maker of the "movie" in the middle of the night, as soon as they had an excuse (while emphasing the America has free speech).I don't like that they spent nine days avoiding the T word (they lied).I don't like that they lied about whether the ambassador was concerned for his personal safety.As far as the security itself, if there was indeed a credible threat that Al Qaeda or another terrorist group was going to attack a US consulate, which is US territory, then I would think that would reach a high level on the command chain.

 

[jonessed]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If true, it would certainly raise some questions about the State Department. But I still don't believe that, unless and until an actual attack occurs, it would ever reach the attention of the White House. And even if it does raise concerns about State, it's probably nowhere near Hillary's level.

http://www.wired.com...12/10/benghazi/

If that report is true, then the State Department really needs to answer for this. I'm still skeptical that it rises to White House level. Obviously, as Arsenal points out, Obama is ultimately responsible for whatever happens. But for me to accept your apparent premise (that Obama screwed up and that another President would have handled things differently) I would need a lot more evidence than you're presenting.

I have never really understood this argument. The president has time for well over 100 fundraisers this year, but attacks/security on American consulates don't rise to the level of a briefing. What excuse are we giving him here? That he is just too darn busy to be bothered with the small stuff or that his staff is incompetent?

 

[Max Power]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.Its going to take time to find these people.

If that is the case why has the FBI not gone to Benghazi yet? The fact that the Administration says that they sent the FBI just makes this story roll on and on.

The FBI will be in Benghazi before the week is out. Security/logistic issues probbably delayed the insertion. I think you guys are watching too many movies if you think the US is just going to send a team of super FBI agents to solve crimes and kill bad guys. We have to make sure the area is safe/secure prior to putting these people on the ground.Otherwise its this administrations fault for putting civilians in harms way... Its like no matter what, someone is doing something wrong...

So the area is so dangerous that it's taking over three weeks to get the FBI in there but our Ambassador didn't have adequate protection?

in the end, the answer was obviously no he didn't. It will be interesting to see what was known, and when, after the State department responds to these previous threat reportings. As of right now, I dont have any major issues with this administration's response. It wasn't perfect, but nothing is when you look at it after the fact. IF it turns out that treats were ignored or downplayed, then some people are going to have some serious explaining to do.

 

[pittstownkiller]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.

Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.

Its going to take time to find these people.

If that is the case why has the FBI not gone to Benghazi yet? The fact that the Administration says that they sent the FBI just makes this story roll on and on.

The FBI will be in Benghazi before the week is out. Security/logistic issues probbably delayed the insertion. I think you guys are watching too many movies if you think the US is just going to send a team of super FBI agents to solve crimes and kill bad guys. We have to make sure the area is safe/secure prior to putting these people on the ground.Otherwise its this administrations fault for putting civilians in harms way... Its like no matter what, someone is doing something wrong...

Yes, that is what I want the FBI to do go and shoot bad guys, that is exactly the tone I took; thanks for taking the most inane interpretation of my post, that you could. Answer this: the Administration said they sent the FBI in weeks ago; why the lie and why should the American public not be be alarmed by the cover-up? The Congressional Oversight Committee has released a report that the White House is refusing to comment on; shades of F&F all over again. I also love the concept that the FBI cannot go into an area because it is so dangerous but they leave the Ambassador, and others, hung out to dry despite repeated request for more security. I am sure the FBI will find many useful leads one month after the initial attack. The Administration has decided that they were going to lie about the Benghazi attacks, and reaffirm this lie repeatedly, but the public is supposed to believe that whatever steps the Government is taking is the best course of action; get real.

 

[Widbil83]

You guys crack me up with this ####. Your real issues are with Obama, the media, the government, ect... and you just spin everything to making a talking point.

Just accept that things are being done to find the people responsible for the attacks. The media has a lot of information on this... More than I thought they would. Not everything put out is 100% factual and they are even putting out some things that they shouldn't be.

Its going to take time to find these people.

If that is the case why has the FBI not gone to Benghazi yet? The fact that the Administration says that they sent the FBI just makes this story roll on and on.

The FBI will be in Benghazi before the week is out. Security/logistic issues probbably delayed the insertion. I think you guys are watching too many movies if you think the US is just going to send a team of super FBI agents to solve crimes and kill bad guys. We have to make sure the area is safe/secure prior to putting these people on the ground.Otherwise its this administrations fault for putting civilians in harms way... Its like no matter what, someone is doing something wrong...

Yes, that is what I want the FBI to do go and shoot bad guys, that is exactly the tone I took; thanks for taking the most inane interpretation of my post, that you could. Answer this: the Administration said they sent the FBI in weeks ago; why the lie and why should the American public not be be alarmed by the cover-up? The Congressional Oversight Committee has released a report that the White House is refusing to comment on; shades of F&F all over again. I also love the concept that the FBI cannot go into an area because it is so dangerous but they leave the Ambassador, and others, hung out to dry despite repeated request for more security. I am sure the FBI will find many useful leads one month after the initial attack. The Administration has decided that they were going to lie about the Benghazi attacks, and reaffirm this lie repeatedly, but the public is supposed to believe that whatever steps the Government is taking is the best course of action; get real.

I love how the FBI can't go to the Embassy but CNN reporters show up a week after the attack and walk right in and find the dead Ambassador's journal just laying on the ground. This entire thing is completely ridiculous and people need to be brought before Congress asap.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If true, it would certainly raise some questions about the State Department. But I still don't believe that, unless and until an actual attack occurs, it would ever reach the attention of the White House. And even if it does raise concerns about State, it's probably nowhere near Hillary's level.

http://www.wired.com...12/10/benghazi/

If that report is true, then the State Department really needs to answer for this. I'm still skeptical that it rises to White House level. Obviously, as Arsenal points out, Obama is ultimately responsible for whatever happens. But for me to accept your apparent premise (that Obama screwed up and that another President would have handled things differently) I would need a lot more evidence than you're presenting.

So you don't think the President is briefed when attacks are made on US embassies?

 

[moleculo]

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense to me that the White House would ever be involved in making specific decisions about embassy security. It's like blaming Jerry Jones because the Cowboys' practice facility was short of equipment.

What about when a specific embassy was being targeted for months, like was the case here?That may change things wouldn't it?

I doubt it. If true, it would certainly raise some questions about the State Department. But I still don't believe that, unless and until an actual attack occurs, it would ever reach the attention of the White House. And even if it does raise concerns about State, it's probably nowhere near Hillary's level.

http://www.wired.com...12/10/benghazi/

If that report is true, then the State Department really needs to answer for this. I'm still skeptical that it rises to White House level. Obviously, as Arsenal points out, Obama is ultimately responsible for whatever happens. But for me to accept your apparent premise (that Obama screwed up and that another President would have handled things differently) I would need a lot more evidence than you're presenting.

So you don't think the President is briefed when attacks are made on US embassies?

you know, it really doesn't matter. Ultimately, State Department is part of the Executive Branch. The buck has to stop somewhere. someone screwed up, and ultimately that falls on Obama's doorstep.The left was all about blaming the poor response to Katrina on Michael Brown, and then Bush for hiring Brown in the first place. IMO, that was wrong, because local authorities should be first responders, but whatever. This particular situation is more clear-cut, in that the chain of command leads directly to the White House.

 

[jamny]

link

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee leaders today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking why requests for more protection were denied to the U.S. mission in Libya by Washington officials prior to the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The denials came after repeated attacks and security threats to U.S. personnel.

“Based on information provided to the Committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to September 11, 2012. It was clearly never, as Administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest,” the committee’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, write. “In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi. The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The letter outlines 13 security threats over the six months prior to the attack.

“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the chairmen write.

The Committee indicated it intends to convene a hearing in Washington on Wednesday October 10, 2012, on the security failures that preceded the attack.

 

[Max Power]

Three weeks after the attack on the U.S. consulate that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead, a team of FBI investigators got to the site in Benghazi, Libya, on Wednesday and departed today after about 12 hours on the ground, The Associated Press reports.The BBC writes that an FBI spokeswoman "says the team went to 'all the relevant locations' in Libya's second city in one day, but did not specify what they had found."According to CNN:"A U.S. military security force accompanied the FBI team to the site and provided security for them as they traveled there. Officials said it was an indication of the ongoing security concerns in the region."The AP adds that: "U.S. intelligence and special operations forces have focused on at most "one or two individuals" in the Libya-based extremist group Ansar al-Shariah who may have had something to do with the attack, according to a U.S. counterterrorism official. But that official and two others said there was no definitive evidence linking even those individuals to the attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the investigation publicly."Members of Ansar al-Shariah were recorded making boastful calls to other militants after the attack, including to members of al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, which is suspected of having a role in the attack, one of the officials said. But that's common in the aftermath of any such attack, when different militant groups try to claim credit to build their own stature in the region, the official said."So far, U.S. intelligence has found no evidence showing communication between militants prior to the attack, which took place on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S."

 

[Widbil83]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced."They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security."We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

 

[jonessed]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced."They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security."We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

 

[Max Power]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced."They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security."We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson. Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

 

[Widbil83]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Can we just go ahead and personally blame Obama and Hillary directly for this already?

 

[datonn]

Can we just go ahead and personally blame Obama and Hillary directly for this already?

It would save a lot of time and bandwidth. Though they probably can't for a couple more days...as they're still accusing Obama of "cooking the books" to get the unemployment rate just SLIGHTLY under where it was when he took office. HTH.

 

[Max Power]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Did you miss the memo about looming defense spending cuts? People gripe about taxes and then complain when we aren't spending. I'll wait until all the facts come out until we call this incompetence.

 

[Max Power]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Can we just go ahead and personally blame Obama and Hillary directly for this already?

It may get ugly for Hilary. You can't blame Obama for the lack of security, but you can blame him for the response to the event.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Did you miss the memo about looming defense spending cuts? People gripe about taxes and then complain when we aren't spending. I'll wait until all the facts come out until we call this incompetence.

What facts are you looking for? I'm not saying that everything has been answered I was just wondering what specifically you are looking for.

 

[Max Power]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Did you miss the memo about looming defense spending cuts? People gripe about taxes and then complain when we aren't spending. I'll wait until all the facts come out until we call this incompetence.

What facts are you looking for? I'm not saying that everything has been answered I was just wondering what specifically you are looking for.

Just to confirm the requests for extra security were submitted and the reason why they were denied.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Did you miss the memo about looming defense spending cuts? People gripe about taxes and then complain when we aren't spending. I'll wait until all the facts come out until we call this incompetence.

What facts are you looking for? I'm not saying that everything has been answered I was just wondering what specifically you are looking for.

Just to confirm the requests for extra security were submitted and the reason why they were denied.

Since we will never see why they were denied, would you accept the unanswered requests as incompetence - in light of what happened?

 

[Max Power]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Did you miss the memo about looming defense spending cuts? People gripe about taxes and then complain when we aren't spending. I'll wait until all the facts come out until we call this incompetence.

What facts are you looking for? I'm not saying that everything has been answered I was just wondering what specifically you are looking for.

Just to confirm the requests for extra security were submitted and the reason why they were denied.

Since we will never see why they were denied, would you accept the unanswered requests as incompetence - in light of what happened?

I think Hilary will speak to it on Wednesday. If the requests just went unanswered, then yes. I'd see that as incompetence at the State department level. The more that comes out about this, the more it looks like a situation that could have been avoided. I was backing this admin's initial response to the issue, but it is getting harder and harder to defend their actions.

 

[Widbil83]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Can we just go ahead and personally blame Obama and Hillary directly for this already?

It may get ugly for Hilary. You can't blame Obama for the lack of security, but you can blame him for the response to the event.

The "blame the video" cover up/first response has always been the most disgusting imo. But I have no idea why you say we can't blame Obama for the lack of security. If Abu Ghraib and the Katrina response were Bush's fault, you bet your ### this is Obama's problem.

 

[Max Power]

The "blame the video" cover up/first response has always been the most disgusting imo. But I have no idea why you say we can't blame Obama for the lack of security. If Abu Ghraib and the Katrina response were Bush's fault, you bet your ### this is Obama's problem.

It was the wrong call, but I don't think it was a cover up. The people wanted to know what happened and the admin gave its best assessment at the time. It's not like we knew that attack was about to happen, did nothing and covered it up. The details came out after the fact, so I find little fault in Obama's first response.I also wont go as far as blaming Obama for the lack of security because to the best of our knowledge, those type of decisions don't make their way all the way up to the White House. Heck, Hilary seems to be blind sided by this as well, so its not even at her level.My personal feeling is that you can't blame the event itself on Obama. The reaction to it... fine. Even in your response, you point out how Bush was blamed for everything on his watch, even if it was outside of his control and now this is just a what goes around comes around type thinking.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

The "blame the video" cover up/first response has always been the most disgusting imo. But I have no idea why you say we can't blame Obama for the lack of security. If Abu Ghraib and the Katrina response were Bush's fault, you bet your ### this is Obama's problem.

It was the wrong call, but I don't think it was a cover up. The people wanted to know what happened and the admin gave its best assessment at the time. It's not like we knew that attack was about to happen, did nothing and covered it up. The details came out after the fact, so I find little fault in Obama's first response.I also wont go as far as blaming Obama for the lack of security because to the best of our knowledge, those type of decisions don't make their way all the way up to the White House. Heck, Hilary seems to be blind sided by this as well, so its not even at her level.My personal feeling is that you can't blame the event itself on Obama. The reaction to it... fine. Even in your response, you point out how Bush was blamed for everything on his watch, even if it was outside of his control and now this is just a what goes around comes around type thinking.

I guess what bugs me about the whole thing - and this is an administration thing, not something that should be pinned on Obama - is that the immediate reaction was not to castigate the murderers but to somehow blame the victim. It was "our" fault because of some video. That really bugs me because I am tired of the appeasement at every turn. Sometimes it is okay to admit that America is not to blame. Stop the nonsense, regardless of who the president is or who you want to vote for. For once stand up for America - it is okay to point out her flaws when necessary but that shouldn't be the default position.

 

[jonessed]

This thing is getting real ugly.

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

He said other staffers approached him with their concerns when the reduction in security personnel was announced.

"They asked if we were safe," he told Attkisson. "They asked... what was going to happen, and I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it - they'll get us more (security personnel), but I never saw that."

Wood insists that senior staff in Libya, including Ambassador Stevens, State Department Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, and himself, all wanted and had requested enhanced security.

"We felt we needed more, not less," he tells Attkisson.

Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told "to do with less. For what reasons, I don't know."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/?tag=MidDeep;leadHed

What could be the State Department's rationale for such a bone-headed move? None of this makes any sense.

Money. We are in a "do more with less" mindset.

The government is never in this mindset; the answer is incompetence.

Can we just go ahead and personally blame Obama and Hillary directly for this already?

Since Hillary runs the State Department it's hard not to fault her for lack of security in our foreign offices. It's not like Libya is off the radar here. This clearly falls in her direct realm of influence.

 

[jamny]

The "blame the video" cover up/first response has always been the most disgusting imo. But I have no idea why you say we can't blame Obama for the lack of security. If Abu Ghraib and the Katrina response were Bush's fault, you bet your ### this is Obama's problem.

It was the wrong call, but I don't think it was a cover up. The people wanted to know what happened and the admin gave its best assessment at the time. It's not like we knew that attack was about to happen, did nothing and covered it up. The details came out after the fact, so I find little fault in Obama's first response.I also wont go as far as blaming Obama for the lack of security because to the best of our knowledge, those type of decisions don't make their way all the way up to the White House. Heck, Hilary seems to be blind sided by this as well, so its not even at her level.My personal feeling is that you can't blame the event itself on Obama. The reaction to it... fine. Even in your response, you point out how Bush was blamed for everything on his watch, even if it was outside of his control and now this is just a what goes around comes around type thinking.

I guess what bugs me about the whole thing - and this is an administration thing, not something that should be pinned on Obama - is that the immediate reaction was not to castigate the murderers but to somehow blame the victim. It was "our" fault because of some video. That really bugs me because I am tired of the appeasement at every turn. Sometimes it is okay to admit that America is not to blame. Stop the nonsense, regardless of who the president is or who you want to vote for. For once stand up for America - it is okay to point out her flaws when necessary but that shouldn't be the default position.

Why isn't it something to pin on Obama if the attitude starts from the top?

 

[FlapJacks]

real reason for the Cairo protests?

 

[FlapJacks]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/19/dhs-report-suggests-us-embassy-attack-in-cairo-was-an-effort-to-demand-the-release-of-1993-wtc-bomber/

 

[jamny]

State Department: No Protest Outside Benghazi Consulate

All was quiet outside the U.S. Consulate as evening fell on Benghazi and President Barack Obama's envoy to Libya was retiring after a day of diplomatic meetings.

There was no indication of the harrowing events that night would bring: assailants storming the compound and setting its buildings aflame, American security agents taking fire across more than a mile of the city, the ambassador and three employees killed and others forced into a daring car escape against traffic.

Senior State Department officials on Tuesday revealed for the first time certain details of last month's tragedy in the former Libyan rebel stronghold, such as the efforts of a quick reaction force that rushed onto the scene and led the evacuation in a fierce gun battle that continued into the streets. The briefing was provided a day before department officials were to testify to a House committee about the most serious attack on a U.S. diplomatic installation since al-Qaida bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenyaand Tanzania 14 years ago.

Complete crap that there was even the slightest connection to the video. Who started this chain of lies?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

The "blame the video" cover up/first response has always been the most disgusting imo. But I have no idea why you say we can't blame Obama for the lack of security. If Abu Ghraib and the Katrina response were Bush's fault, you bet your ### this is Obama's problem.

It was the wrong call, but I don't think it was a cover up. The people wanted to know what happened and the admin gave its best assessment at the time. It's not like we knew that attack was about to happen, did nothing and covered it up. The details came out after the fact, so I find little fault in Obama's first response.I also wont go as far as blaming Obama for the lack of security because to the best of our knowledge, those type of decisions don't make their way all the way up to the White House. Heck, Hilary seems to be blind sided by this as well, so its not even at her level.My personal feeling is that you can't blame the event itself on Obama. The reaction to it... fine. Even in your response, you point out how Bush was blamed for everything on his watch, even if it was outside of his control and now this is just a what goes around comes around type thinking.

I guess what bugs me about the whole thing - and this is an administration thing, not something that should be pinned on Obama - is that the immediate reaction was not to castigate the murderers but to somehow blame the victim. It was "our" fault because of some video. That really bugs me because I am tired of the appeasement at every turn. Sometimes it is okay to admit that America is not to blame. Stop the nonsense, regardless of who the president is or who you want to vote for. For once stand up for America - it is okay to point out her flaws when necessary but that shouldn't be the default position.

Why isn't it something to pin on Obama if the attitude starts from the top?

I'll leave that to the political people. At the end of the day I don't care who is in charge as long as I am free to work and live as I please and for the most part they leave me the hell alone. Fortunately I live in a largely rural state so I don't have to deal with the politics more urban settings have.

 

[Hang 10]

State Department: No Protest Outside Benghazi Consulate

All was quiet outside the U.S. Consulate as evening fell on Benghazi and President Barack Obama's envoy to Libya was retiring after a day of diplomatic meetings.

There was no indication of the harrowing events that night would bring: assailants storming the compound and setting its buildings aflame, American security agents taking fire across more than a mile of the city, the ambassador and three employees killed and others forced into a daring car escape against traffic.

Senior State Department officials on Tuesday revealed for the first time certain details of last month's tragedy in the former Libyan rebel stronghold, such as the efforts of a quick reaction force that rushed onto the scene and led the evacuation in a fierce gun battle that continued into the streets. The briefing was provided a day before department officials were to testify to a House committee about the most serious attack on a U.S. diplomatic installation since al-Qaida bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenyaand Tanzania 14 years ago.

Complete crap that there was even the slightest connection to the video. Who started this chain of lies?

Starts from the top.

 

[pittstownkiller]

This is blowing up on Capitol Hill and surprisingly I find this thread on page 2; I figured there would be some dialogue here. Testimony is coming from the security personnel saying that they requested extra security only to have it go unanswered. It is tough to ignore Lt. Col. Wood's testimony that begins with that he felt it is his duty to testify even at peril to his career.

 

[Slapdash]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

 

[Sam Quentin]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

this line of attack is absolutely disgusting and vile

 

[pittstownkiller]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

 

[Sam Quentin]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

budget cuts mean that they are not competent enough to allocate money to the proper resources.

 

[Slapdash]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

Link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.htmlJust thought it was an interesting angle given many of the Congressmen today in the questioning have voted to slash these budgets.

 

[Slapdash]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

this line of attack is absolutely disgusting and vile

I don't think that is an "attack"

 

[BigSteelThrill]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

this line of attack is absolutely disgusting and vile

How so?

 

[jonessed]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

Link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.htmlJust thought it was an interesting angle given many of the Congressmen today in the questioning have voted to slash these budgets.

Has the State Department claimed that the security requests were denied due to a lack of funding?

 

[Slapdash]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

Link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.htmlJust thought it was an interesting angle given many of the Congressmen today in the questioning have voted to slash these budgets.

Has the State Department claimed that the security requests were denied due to a lack of funding?

I'm not sure, Hilary and I don't talk as much these days.

 

[Apple Jack]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

Link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.htmlJust thought it was an interesting angle given many of the Congressmen today in the questioning have voted to slash these budgets.

Has the State Department claimed that the security requests were denied due to a lack of funding?

I'm not sure, Hilary and I don't talk as much these days.

That's Congress-caliber fire to throw around just prior to a Presidential election. I imagine even if it is the case, they sit on it.

 

[Todd Andrews]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

This seems a little vile too.

 

[quickhands]

Looks like Romneys supposedly "too early" comments were right on. Clearly he has a better handle on this situation than the white house.

 

[Widbil83]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected. Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

this line of attack is absolutely disgusting and vile

It's actually a false attack because more Democrats voted to cut spending to Libya than Republicans.

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.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/10/dems-accuse-gop-of-cutting-security-funding-in-libya-despite-majority-dem-support-for-vote/

 

[BigSteelThrill]

bill, you are failing to grasp the nuance of the situation.

Obama wanted MORE security.

The House republicans and democrats voted to lessen it.

The House republicans now want to complain/vilify Obama on a lack of that security.

 

[Hang 10]

bill, you are failing to grasp the nuance of the situation.Obama wanted MORE security.The House republicans and democrats voted to lessen it.The House republicans now want to complain/vilify Obama on a lack of that security.

Obama wanted more security for the ambassador in Libya? Link?The house wanted LESS SECURITY in Libya? LINK?

 

[CrossEyed]

bill, you are failing to grasp the nuance of the situation.Obama wanted MORE security.The House republicans and democrats voted to lessen it.The House republicans now want to complain/vilify Obama on a lack of that security.

No, he wanted more money. Spending more money < > getting better results.

 

[jonessed]

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

A nice quote (you may want to include a link). Budget cuts are a legitimate defense (not one I would make) but where does the video that sparked this, at least that was the official line, fit in? I would also ask if the Ambassador was asking for additional security, and the State Department knew they did not have the funds to provide it, why wasn't the diplomatic team recalled?

Link is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-forget-about-big-bird/2012/10/09/5f9a411c-1258-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.htmlJust thought it was an interesting angle given many of the Congressmen today in the questioning have voted to slash these budgets.

Has the State Department claimed that the security requests were denied due to a lack of funding?

I'm not sure, Hilary and I don't talk as much these days.

I'll take that as a no.