Last year my operational budget was lean because outstanding accounts were not being promptly paid. One crew foremen was begging for a new truck because he claimed the old one was getting dangerous. I had the money to buy the truck, but because my operational budget was so lean and I had no way of knowing what unexpected other expense might occur, I didn't buy the new truck.
That management decision is reasonable if I think the old truck is not an excessive traffic hazard.
Since Ms Lamb could not personally keep the money, why do you think she did not spend it without hesitation? Could it be because republikans has just slashed the budget and she was being cautious with available funds?
I looked up what is considered an act of terrorism and he could have called just about anything event an act of terrorism technically:
TSF, the Republicans didn't meander into the Rose Garden and give the speech, Obama did. He didn't have the facts straight, nor did Hillary and they ended up with egg on their face. He and Hillary were still apologizing for a stupid you tube video by an American two weeks after the fact. You're still dodging the fact that Ms. Lamb clearly stated funding was there for the consulate in Benghazi, although funding across the board had been cut. It doesn't matter if the Republicans cut funding, that was a non-issue in this case, she didn't give them the money they needed and it was there. Who cut funding would have been an issue if Ms. Lamb didn't have funds, but she did, but chose to withhold them. Republicans didn't make up her words at the senate hearing, she owned it, they didn't make up Susan Rice's lies, Hillary's or Obama's. For God's sake, their words can even be found on videos on mainstream media, which is not exactly a Republican bastion.