Skip to main content

View Diary: Ackerman (D-NY) and Others Unload on GOP at Benghazi Hearing (UPDATED) (135 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong. (4+ / 0-)

    From Dana Milbank - follow the link at top to the column, then each key fact in the column is linked to legitimate news sources.

    "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."

    I don't know how the burden of proof came over to my side, but there you go.

    You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Pierce

    by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:12:53 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's not correct. You have to dig a little. (0+ / 0-)

      Read State's budget requests for security related line items, starting around p. 417:

      http://www.state.gov/...

      Compare FY 2011 actual funding versus the FY 2012 cost estimate.  If you consider all sources of funding, there was actually a net increase in funding for FY 2012.

      The cuts in question were not made for FY 2012.  They were made for FY 2013, so even if the amounts requested for FY 2013 had been approved in their entirety, that would have had no effect on the events in Libya.

      Last, even if the complained of cuts had impacted FY 2012, State gets to decide where it allocates its funds.  It's not like every post is the same, and gets the same allowance.  If State had wanted to boost funding for Benghazi by taking some money away from, say, Luxembourg, I am sure they could have done so. But that's State's call.   Once the money gets appropriated, State spends it, not Republican Congressmen.  

      Find another scapegoat.  They suck, but they didn't cause this problem, and anyone who says they did is blowing smoke.

      Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

      by SpamNunn on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:28:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I misunderstood (3+ / 0-)

        I don't think House Republicans caused this.  I think Libyan extremists caused this.

        I am saying that the GOP's newly found grave concern for State Department security is squarely at odds with their record, and that we should absolutely lambast them for attempting to take the moral high ground in this so-called coverup.

        You couldn't load a pistol with dormitive virtue and shoot it into a breakfast-roll - CS Pierce

        by Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 02:55:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (158)
  • Community (73)
  • Baltimore (70)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Freddie Gray (39)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • Elections (28)
  • Culture (26)
  • Racism (24)
  • Labor (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Economy (19)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Media (19)
  • 2016 (17)
  • Science (16)
  • Environment (15)
  • Politics (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site