Quantcast

Comments about ‘State Dept: Security at Libya consulate adequate’

Return to article »

Utah commander also offering testimony

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 10 2012 1:23 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

"State Department officials are telling Congress that security levels at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya were adequate ....."

Yeah, what else could they have possibly said? Looks like they were wrong, and Americans paid the price for their assessment.

Third try screen name
Mapleton, UT

I would have to think they were wrong about adequate protection. After all, four Americans are dead.

county mom
Monroe, UT

The Ambassador and three protectors are dead. That is proof that they are wrong, Dead Wrong!

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

"We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11," said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state for diplomatic security in charge of protecting American embassies and consulates around the world."

I guess for these guys even hindsight is NOT 20/20.

Makes you wonder why they IGNORED the requests from those on the ground for more security.

what a bunch of incompetents!

VST
Bountiful, UT

It would be really enlightening to see the real message traffic going back and forth between the embassy personnel (including the Ambassador) and those back home at Foggy Bottom prior to 9/11. I would bet that some of that messaging out of Libya would have been indicating that they need more security personnel, based upon their threat assessments (observations) at the consulates. And I would also bet the response out of Foggy Bottom would indicate that what they had in Libya was certainly adequate.

But just like Fast and Furious, any disclosure of this type will likely be buried by this Administration because it would highlight their incompetence.

Makid
Kearns, UT

What makes it worse is that in the last 2 funding sessions passed by the House first and the Senate later the House has cut more than $400 Million from the State Department security fund over the objections by the State Department.

Jason Chaffetz admitted that they cut funding because it wasn't a priority. Now that 4 people are dead, they want to blame the State Department for doing what they were allowed with less funding. This is all the result of the random cutting without planning that Republicans had done.

Check out CNN for the story. It won't be reported here because it would put Republicans in a bad light.

One day people will understand that surgical cuts are better than across the board cuts. But to many people think that it is better to cut PBS than cut even $5 Billion from a Military budget that is nearly 3 times larger than it was in 2000. There is bloat to the Federal Budget that can be cut right there. Unfortunately, no Republican will call for cuts there because PBS is such a better target (0.0014% of the budget).

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Makid,

What Deputy Secretary of State, Charlene Lamb, said was "We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11." She did NOT say the reason why this failure occurred was because the Security Budget had been cut.

The budget cut EXCUSE for this failure at Benghazi was brought up by the lame Democrat Minority Leader of the Committee – NOT by Charlene Lamb of the State Department. That was a politically motivated statement by the Minority Leader, pure and simple – it was NOT a factually based statement.

As you indicated the Democrat-controlled Senate approved of those same funding cuts as did the Republican-controlled House, which was then signed and approved by President Obama. So, IF this failure occurred as a direct result of those funding cuts, then there is blood on the hands of BOTH Democrat and Republican hands in Congress along with the hands of a President who is also a Democrat – not just the Republican-controlled House.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments