I received this posting from “drugsandotherthings” in regards to my blog about Black Hawk Down and the Libyan assassination of Ambassador Stevens. He or she wrote, “Second- you do realize it was the GOP controlled house that cut the funding for security at overseas embassies?”
Yes, there were cuts in funding for security for overseas embassies by the House of Representatives; however, the cuts were not the reason for the lack of security for Ambassador Stevens. Here is part of the testimony about security and funding before the house committee as reported by CSPAN(http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congres…10737434835-1/):
Eric Nordstrom, the man responsible for U.S. Embassy security in Libya this summer, testified: “So when I requested resources, when I requested assets, instead of supporting those assets, I was criticized. [T]here was no plan. And it was hope that everything would get better.”
“Hope that everything” would get better and criticized? There were multiple attacks against US diplomatic agencies before 9/11 which indicated a real danger to Americans in Libya. Yet for requesting more security assets, Nordstrom was criticized and granted nothing.
Below is the testimony of the person who received Nordstrom’s request and the justification for refusing his request.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.): “Mrs Lamb, you made this decision personally [to reject the request for more security], was there any budget consideration, or lack of budget, that allowed you not to increase the people in the security force there”
Charlene Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs, Response: “No Sir.”
Lamb went on to testify that the State Department was right not to grant the request for more security. “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11.”
Lamb’s testimony demolished the idea that budget considerations were the reason for the lack of additional security resources being sent to Libya and the State Department was correct in not granting Nordstrom the additional security.
Like the president of the United States, the Secretary of State gets daily intelligence briefings. Hillary Clinton was aware of the attacks before 9/11 because of the briefings. She could have reallocated funds for additional security as the head of the State Department.
Instead of beefing up security, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent on green energy expenditures at various U.S. Embassies. This huge expenditure was part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative.
The testimonies before Congress clearly indicated that security funding cuts were NOT responsible for the murder of Ambassador Stevens. The State Department under Hillary Clinton refused the request for additional security in Libya. Additional Marines, who are the guards at embassies around the world, could have been ordered to Libya for deployment at any time. Instead, the State Department refused the request of Eric Nordstrom for additional security in Libya. VOLT cars were the priority, not Libyan security. Poor choice!