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

Originally posted by Destinyone

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

The WH itself funds/directs the expendutures of the Embassies... the WH evidently snubbed the Ambassador in Benghazi several times about requesting additional security, personnel and equipment...


the funds were there--- but the Øbama WH chose to allow the State Dept. to spend money on Chevy 'Volts' in Europe and to buy a electrical plug in station for an embassy in Vienna...

Øbama's priorities are not like mainstream Americans


see Article:

Priorities: Chevy Volts in Europe Trump Embassy Security in Benghazi

townhall.com...

(it seems the State Department put green energy investments ahead of embassy and personnel security in dangerous countries. Investors.com has the details

... Four days after the use of an ancient DC-3, along with other security requests, was being denied, on May 7, 2012,
the State Department authorized the U.S. Embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric-vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool's new Chevrolet Volts.

As Rep. Mike Kelly points out in a Washington Times op-ed, the purchase was a part of the State Department's "Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe" initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. embassies.

At a May 10 gala held at the U.S. Embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government's commitment to "climate change solutions." The event posting on the embassy website read: "Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy."

... the Obama administration has a “laser-like” focus on climate change as it is, but this revelation is truly unbelievable.

it seems the State Department put green energy investments ahead of embassy and personnel security in dangerous countries. Investors.com has the details:

According to Nordstrom, the State Department not only refused his requests for greater security, but also actually reduced the number of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to foreign service officers based in Libya. Security was left to one DSS agent, four armed members of the 17th of February Martyrs Brigade and unarmed Libyan contractors employed by the British-based Blue Mountain Group.

In a May 3, 2012, email on which Ambassador Stevens was copied, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. Embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC-3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

bold emphasis by me


repeat: Øbama's priorities are not like mainstream America's


sorry bout all the edits there Mod

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

reply to post by grey580

We had many naval vessels in the area before the attack carriering a few thousand Marines that could have flown in there in a heart beat...I know my buddies kid is on the U.S.S. New York....so why did tis happen?????

Originally posted by NorEaster
I swear, it's as if no one here has ever worked for an actual bureaucratic organization before. You idiots actually think that Obama has any idea about - let alone input in on - the minute workings of the State Department's embassy security management process? Darryl Issa is a con-man, and you meats are suckers for the kind of boneheaded stuff he shills. Download an org chart of the State Department someday (if you can even figure out how to find one) and check out the layers and layers of managers that exist between Hillary and where that specific decision is made for embassy security funding. Then consider that Obama does not slink around behind Hillary's back to manager her staff and the people that they manage.

Ok - I'll play that game...

According to this chart: United States Department of State

That would be POTUS - Secretary of State - Undersecretary for Management - to finally Diplomatic Security and Foreign Missions (DS) Assistant Secretary

So the many layers to get to the person who had the both the authority to make and for the decision were - 4 (four)? Not 4 "layers" of "people" but three (3) human beings away... If you run an organization and don't know what decisions the managers three people in the chain down from you are making on your behalf - you are doing it wrong.

Have you ever been in a bureaucratic organization? What manager at that level can/would make a decision that could so clearly effect their bosses’ position without at least consulting him/her before making it?

Clearly any reasonable manager would keep his/her boss informed as to what decisions he made that could possibly result in deaths of American's abroad? Can you tell me that when our Embassy is attacked the POTUS doesn't get notified? Did none of these great leaders care to ask what was going on or what we were doing to help them out?

When I worked on staff and one of my teams came under fire in Afghanistan - (which were more than 4 layers of leadership below the man I worked for a Major General) knew to find the answers to his first two questions (before or telephonically) as I walked to his office (day or night) and inform him personally. He wanted to know immediately when one of his units engaged the enemy or were attacked these two primary things.

His first question was always...

1) Was anyone hurt or killed both ours or our national Army Allies?

Followed with...

2) Do they have everything they need and have they asked for anything from us that we can get expedited to help them out?

God help the staff officer who had said no to some request that in the General's mind would have, could have or should have prevented a casualty by not being delayed or worse denied...

Then again - in the military we are taught to care about our subordinates.

Maybe the State Department just doesn’t care?

I don't believe that - I bet those questions were asked if not by Hillary most certainly by her career Foreign Service personnel.

Denying any knowledge of a high threat environment in Libya of all places along with denial that anyone had requested the funds or personnel to mitigate that threat is an outright lie on the part of the POTUS and his cronies.

Unfortunately it will fall under executive privilege and we will never see a scrap of paper to that effect. However, I know, anyone who has been in the military knows things like decisions to deny a request for more or upgraded security are not taken lightly and most certainly not without the pre-brief that any denial could later look really bad for the POTUS should it be discovered.

If his subordinates left him hanging - then he has appointed poorly; however, he is still responsible for their (in)actions.

reply to post by Golf66


Game over...you won....



Des

reply to post by Golf66

This country is going down the toilet! good post!

Originally posted by grey580
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.

on counting on the MSM

Stop that.

reply to post by jibeho

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

What blame game? It's the truth they did cut funding for embassy defense. And who led the charge to cut the funding? None other than Paul Ryan.

Chaffetz defends voting to cut funds for embassy security

Chaffetz was asked by host Soledad O'Brien if he had voted to cut funding for embassy security in the past during an interview on CNN's "Starting Point." "Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country," said Chaffetz. "We have ... 15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army, there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about, can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces? When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."

Why anyone who reads this forum and still supports the current political establishment in Washington DC after learning that the September 11th attack in Libya was not an attack by rioting protesters as Washington DC was quick to blame but a terrorist attack. So not only did Washington DC know this was a terrorist attack but they also knew an attack was coming but gosh darn it if that intel wasn't ignored for whatever reason. This sounds familiar. Wait, where have I heard this before? Oh right, of course, September 11, 2001. Ten year anniversary too boot.

So Washington knew attacks were coming and at the same time the embassy in Benghazi was requesting security because they had none other than 2 ex USN SEALs and the security the Libyan Gov't was to provide. The embassy was absolutely right wanting security and that's because Libya is filled with terrorists. These terrorists came in Libya during the 2011 civil war under the guise of freedom fighters. Once inside and pushing back Gaddafi's forces, thanks to NATO, these terrorist released fellow terrorists from Libyan prisons, thanks to Gaddafi. Libya is in major turmoil at the moment with people displaced, a weak Gov't, weak police force, weak military force (whom doesn't communicate well with the police), and actual terrorist bases all brought to you by the NATO led civil war of 2011.

If you were in the embassy in Benghazi wouldn't you feel better if US Marines were stationed there with you? Hell yes you would! So they asked for it and were denied. Let's do some math, our Gov't knew attacks were planned and at the same time denied requested security to the very place that was to be attack on September 11th. Does it get more blatant than that?

So am I surprised there was money for security and our Gov't was lying? Hell no, they constantly lie and get away with it. It's really quite incredible and no one seems to see it. Pretty amazing.

Stop blaming one puppet regime over another, Democrat or Republican. Washington needs to be cleansed and just for saying that I am now considered a terrorist. And I understand why they would call me such a thing and that's because they are afraid.

It is just comical how the sheclinton has made a statement assuming
full blame for the lack of security.. all in the name of " lets not give the prez a bad-er image of not caring"

I absolutely hate politicians.

reply to post by jibeho


Oh, so a congressman claims something, without providing any evidence of it, and it is taken as fact. Please, if you are going to make this claim, do explain just where this money being sat on is.

Remember Republican congress people say a lot of doozies to the press or even on the House Floor.

Michelle Bachmann: “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas," on the House floor in April, 2009.

People die from CO2 poisoning, amongst other other things that too much CO2 causes.

As for Issa himself, he has declared the Obama administration the most corrupt in US history. Never mind the Nixon administration, from which many officials did, indeed, go to prison for crimes committed. Guess Darrell doesn't remember Watergate.

Here's Issa on the Fast and Furious program:

Fortune reports that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives operation was nothing like U.S. Rep. Issa has claimed. In fact, Fast and Furious was so different that it is virtually impossible for Issa to be so utterly misinformed. He appears to be lying.

see full story for more details:

Darrell Issa and the fast and Furious Program

Issa also has a history of auto theft and illegal firearm possession. Just google his name, along with these charges. Yet, we're supposed to believe what he says?

If the Obama administration is sitting on $2 billion in Embassy and/or consulate security, then please point to where exactly that money is being held, and what this money is meant for. Is it for guards or construction or electronic monitoring or what?

reply to post by jibeho


How many times do you need to be told; IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY!!!

Congressional testimony says they were left naked based on state department protocol. (DS Lamb)

They wanted to normalize the consolute via "trained" nationalists.

After Amb Stevens requested more security; at least 2 and as many as 12 times; they were denied. In fact, they reduced the 3 SST's (Special Ops Security Teams)....48 operators/3.....from 3 to 2 and then eventually 1. He personally requested that his SST be granted an extension of 60 days. This to was denied by DS Lamp. The head of the SST LTC Wood and the RSO all made the request.

This all the while Gen Allen was happy for the Diplomatic Service of the State Department to use his troops. He offered multiple times according to Ltc Wood under oath. So, after thier 2-12 requests for help, the State Department removed the last SST!!!!!!!!!!! After all, Bin laden was dead and al ka duh was dead; or so O'bozo says says.

Even though Al Qaeda is massing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Egypt, and Libya in the 10's to hundreds of thousands; they don't exist accordind to the annointed one. It doesn't fit his rhetoric if the jihadists are still even more alive then when he came into office.

It seems all this administration can do is deflect and run away; an unfortunate look into the highest office in this land. I won't start to list the scandals inside what this president calls an administration. It's just disgusting. It should go down in history as the worst ever; and that's saying something.

I should stop now.

EVERYBODY GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Dude, your whole global wheather/change/business is based on this

Michelle Bachmann: “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas," on the House floor in April, 2009.

What the hell are you talking about????? It's your groups frikkin talking point.....lol.....oh, forgot who I was talking to...

reply to post by NorEaster

I have no idea what you people have against an American car, but again, a Chevy Volt

You should read up and get an idea.
The Chevy Volt is made by GM. The automaker that got propped up by the govt when it should have failed due to mismanagement.
The Volt did not sell very well because consumers didn't want it.
As a result, they decided to quit making the car.
Since then, the ones that were built were recalled because they had a tendency to catch fire and burn in the parking lot while the owner was in the grocery store.

Gee, what would anyone have against that car?

reply to post by MrInquisitive


Were you to stupid or scared to hot wire a car yourself?

reply to post by butcherguy


Government Motors

I used to love driving a car that caught fire, but not until right before the finish, and the win

Thanks to O'bozo, I will never buy a GM again in my life

Ford didn't take a dime

reply to post by Yosemite Sam

The company that I work for bought nothing but GM for 20 years.

They recently started buying Fords.

Maybe I'm just pissed as I'm in the middle of replacing the fuel pump in my K1500. Sure would be nice if you could just flip'em over.

So, I agree with almost everything you said:

"Denying any knowledge of a high threat environment in Libya of all places along with denial that anyone had requested the funds or personnel to mitigate that threat is an outright lie on the part of the POTUS and his cronies.

Unfortunately it will fall under executive privilege and we will never see a scrap of paper to that effect. However, I know, anyone who has been in the military knows things like decisions to deny a request for more or upgraded security are not taken lightly and most certainly not without the pre-brief that any denial could later look really bad for the POTUS should it be discovered.

If his subordinates left him hanging - then he has appointed poorly; however, he is still responsible for their (in)actions."



If "the buck stops here", how did he just get Clinton to take full responsibility? Thought she had eyes for 2016. Maybe Beck was right; the next four are more important then 2016. After 6 hours, I still don't get it.