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?