« | »

The AP Lied To Give Cover For Hillary’s Claims

From the Associated Press:

Feud over budget for diplomatic security escalates

By RICHARD LARDNER | January 22, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — A long-running feud over whether Congress provides enough money for protecting U.S. diplomats escalated Tuesday as the chairman of a Senate subcommittee charged that House Republicans "blithely torpedoed embassy security funds" in stripping a $1 billion measure sought by the State Department from a hurricane relief bill.

What a lie. There has not been any long running feud over this. In her previous appearances before Congress, Mrs. Clinton has never asked for more money for security. Neither has anyone else at the State Department. (See the final paragraph.)

Moreover, as this article eventually has to admit (see the penultimate paragraph) that Congress has increased spending on security at foreign diplomatic posts by 27 percent, or roughly a half-billion dollars just since 2007.

Besides, what does State Department security have to do with Hurricane Sandy relief aid?

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., made the accusation on the eve of departing Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s overdue appearance before the Senate and House Foreign Relations committees to testify about the Obama administration’s handling of the September terrorist assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack.

Clearly, Leahy (and the AP) were both intending to set the stage for Hillary’s testimony and her ‘big lie’ that Republican cuts to security were a factor in the Benghazi attack.

Since then, the fingerpointing has been rampant. Democrats have blamed Republicans for cutting diplomatic security spending too deeply. The GOP has argued that lapses in management and leadership, not a shortage of money, were the reasons State Department officials failed to see the threat…

And, lest we forget, the security people on the ground said that it was not a problem of money, but a problem of politics. The administration did not want to admit that it had to protect itself from the people of Libya, whom we had just helped to liberate. Especially, while Obama was bragging that he had Al Qaeda on the run.

Leahy, who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the State Department’s budget, said the House deleted from the Senate’s version of the Superstorm Sandy emergency relief bill an amendment he wrote at the department’s request to shift up to $1 billion originally intended for U.S. operations in Iraq to be used for improving U.S. security at diplomatic outposts…

Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for the House Appropriations Committee, said any provisions not directly related to storm relief were removed from the bill to ensure its quick passage last week in the House…

Hing said the committee is not opposed to Leahy’s amendment "and agrees that the safety and security of our diplomatic personnel and operations is of the utmost importance." The measure can and should be included in the next suitable piece of legislation, she said…

In other words, the State Department is going to get this money. But that’s not the point. The point is to raise this red herring in order to blame the Republicans for Benghazi.

The independent review panel said serious lapses in management and leadership left the consulate badly unprepared, but it also called for a greater commitment from Congress to support the State Department’s needs. State asked for close to $2.4 billion in its 2013 budget for overseas security…

Notice that we are not told how much State asked for last year, or the year before. (We suspect they didn’t ask for any such increase.)

Since 2007, Congress has increased spending by 27 percent, or roughly a half-billion dollars, on security at foreign diplomatic posts, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Millions more were added over that period specifically for increased security in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But neither Congress nor the State Department added or sought additional spending specifically for security at U.S. posts in Libya despite growing instability in the country, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said in a report in December on the Benghazi attack.

In other words, the AP lied when they said this was a long-running feud.

This ‘lack of funding’ feud was invented in the weeks before Hillary’s testimony.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 24th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “The AP Lied To Give Cover For Hillary’s Claims”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    “The AP Lied To Give Cover For Hillary’s Claims”

    Correction to lede –

    “The AP Lied To Give Cover For Hillary’s Crimes


« Front Page | To Top
« | »