I won't even dispute that spending was less than in the past. There might have been a good reason for past higher spending like some specific project that bumped up spending beyond normal needs. But let's assume that spending was really less for routine security.
With that assumption, let me get this straight. The Republican House--in cooperation with the Democratic Senate and signed by President Obama--specifically reduced the security funding allocated to Benghazi security? Because if not, couldn't other money for less important things have been used instead for Benghazi?
Or did Congress explicitly refuse to allow the agencies involved to transfer money from other accounts to Benghazi spending? That is, funding for new uniforms for the Paris Marine detachment, or whatnot, took priority over Benghazi no matter what the actual security needs were?
And Congress also told the State Department they could not withdraw personnel from inadequately defended facilities in Benghazi?
And all that is the fault of House Republicans?
Democrats must think you are criminally stupid to trot that argument out yet again. Or maybe some damning information is coming out.
Oh yeah, here we go:
CBS News has learned that during the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource: the Counterterrorism Security Group, (CSG).
"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."
Perhaps Democrats just really think Benghazi took place a long time ago. It's from the Marine Corps anthem isn't it? You know, "the shores of Tripoli?" Yeah, early 19th century. A long time ago. In a place far, far away. Of no interest to us.
