Last week during congressional testimony from State Department officials who were on the ground in Libya, we heard over and over again that more security for the consulate in Benghazi was requested but denied. We also heard repeatedly from Democrats, including Ranking Member of the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, claiming a lack of funding was at fault for less security in Benghazi during the time of the attack on 9/11 that left four Americans dead. State Department officials said funding had nothing to do with the situation and now, Chairman Darrell Issa has revealed the State Department is sitting...
In response to:
Great ~ there's a lot of money hanging around that could be used to boost security. But talking about this money in relation to the Benghazi attack seems to be muddying the waters. It'll continue to give some Dems their arguments focusing on budgetary constraints caused by Republicans who, they say, cut the budget. The point is that the question has already been asked and answered in the Hearings: Was your decision to refuse extra security at Benghazi based in any way on budgets? The clear answer was NO. So why does this keep coming up by certain Democrats and argued back and forth about who cut the budget? Hasn't this already been put to rest?
- Noonan on latest ObamaCare delay: Is there even an ObamaCare law anymore? Erika Johnsen 1 hour ago
- Video: Gates sees defense cuts as showing a lack of seriousness by US Jazz Shaw 2 hours ago
- CPAC: Fred Thompson and Persecuted Ed Morrissey 4 hours ago
- WH: Hey, Obama golfing in Key Largo during this crisis is the same as if he were in DC, only warmer Jazz Shaw 5 hours ago
- Rand Paul working to get David Jolly over the finish line in FL-13 special Jazz Shaw 7 hours ago
- CPAC: Daniel Hannan and the origins of liberty Ed Morrissey 8 hours ago